-?. 


JUL  . 


BX  9193  .B4  1852  v. 3 
Beecher,  Lyman,  1775-1863 
Beecher's  works.  -- 


i 


E'l.j''  bi/  C.£fVa^^ejfr&  /Andr, 


^^ 


V 

BEECIIER'S  WORKS.    "VOL.   III. 


VIEWS  or  THEOLOGY; 


AS    DEVELOPED    IN 


THREE    SERMONS, 


HIS   TRIALS   BEFORE   THE   PRESBYTERY  AND 
SYNOD   OF   CINCINNATI,  JUNE,  1885. 


REMARKS  ON  THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 

BY 

LYMAN   BEECIIER,   D.  D. 


BOSTON: 

JOHN  P.  JEWETT  &  COMPANY. 

CLEVELAND,    OHIO: 

JEWETT,   PllOCTOll   &   WOllTHINGTON. 

185o. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1853,  by 

LYMAN    BEECHER, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


STEREOTYPED  BT 

HOBART    &    ROBBINS, 

NEW  KNGLAJiD  TYPE  AND  STEKEOTYPE  FOCNDEBY, 

BOSTON 


CONTENTS. 


^ 


Page 
INTRODUCTION, 5 

SERMON  I.  — ON  DEPENDENCE  AND  FREE  AGENCY,    ...    13 

SERMON  II.  — ON  THE  NATIVE  CHARACTER  OF  MAN,     .   .    53 

SERMON  III. —ON  THE  NATIVE  CHARACTER  OF  MAN,  .   .    72 

TRIAL  FOR  HERESY  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY, 83 

Dr.  Wilson's  Charges,     84 

Testimony, 93 

Dr.  Wilson's  Plea  in  Support  of  his  Charges, 112 

Dr.  Beecher's  Defence. 

Preliminary  Remarks, 190 

Right  of  Private  Interpretation, 196 

Rules  of  Interpretation, 20G 

Natural  Ability, 208 

Moral  Inability, 287 

Original  Sin, 318 

Regeneration,      352 

Charge  of  Perfectionism,      378 

Charge  of  Teaching  Regeneration  by  Truth  alone, 381 

Charge  of  Slandering  the  Church, 384 

Charge  of  Hypocrisy, 387 

Want  of  Entire  Agreement  on  Minor  Topics  no  Bar  to  Fel- 
lowship,    390 


IV  CONTENTS. 

Page 
Effect  of  Decision  on  the  Church, 396 

True  Design  of  Creeds, : 402 

Decision  or  Pkesbytert, 411 

Appeal  to  Syxod,      413 

Decision  of  Synod, 413 

Appeal  to  General  Assembly, 413 

Appeal  Withdrawn  by  Dk.  "Wilson,     413 

REMARKS  ON  AN  ARTICLE  IN  THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW,  .  414 


INTRODUCTORY  HISTORICAL  STATEMENT. 


During  the  pendency  of  my  trials,  and  the  appeal  to  the  Assem- 
bly, innumerable  false  reports  concerning  rae  were  circulated,  and 
an  impervious  mist  of  prejudice  environed  me.  But,  with  one  excep- 
tion, I  made  no  reply.  Once,  however,  such  a  flood  of  misrepre- 
sentation rolled  in  upon  the  Seminary,  as  began  to  alarm  some  of  my 
students  and  other  friends.  I,  therefore,  published  a  concise  his- 
torical statement  of  facts,  which  answered  the  purpose. 

In  addition  to  such  reports,  an  injurious  review  of  my  "  Views 
OF  Theology  "  was  published  in  the  Pri?icefo?i  Repertorij.  But  at 
that  time  my  pastoral  labors  and  Seminary  cares,  and  solicitation 
of  funds,  and  preaching  always  four  times  in  the  week,  and  lecturing 
an  hour  every  week-day,  nine  months  successively,  did,  with  the 
vexations  of  my  ecclesiastical  trials,  so  reduce  my  health,  that  I 
could  not  immediately  answer  it ;  and  as  it  was  limited  to  the  circu- 
lation of  a  periodical,  and  as  my  one  reply  had  provoked  additional 
misrepresentations,  and  thus  afforded  calls  for  twenty  more,  I 
concluded,  in  order  to  end  an  aggressive  controversy,  and  keep  the 
peace,  to  remain  silent,  at  least  for  a  time. 

But  understanding,  at  length,  that  the  article  of  the  Princeton 
reviewer  was  embodied  in  one  of  two  octavo  volumes,  as  a  public 
and  permanent  document,  I  have  deemed  it  a  duty  to  myself,  and 
the  Church  of  God,  in  preparing  my  works  for  the  press,  of  my  own 
knowledge,  and  with  such  aid  as  I  have  needed,  to  prepare  this 
permanent  historical  statement,  as  well  as  the  reply  to  the  Prince- 
ton reviewer,  which  is  subjoined  to  my  Views  of  Theology.     It  is 

VOL.  III.  1* 


6  INTRODUCTORY   HISTORICAL   STATEMENT. 

my  hope  to  renew  no  unkind  feeling  or  discussion,  and  only  to 
stand  CORRECTLY  in  the  view  of  the  present  and  coming  generations. 

Ever  since  the  days  of  Edwards,  there  has  been  a  conflict 
between  the  divines  of  New  England  and  those  of  a  portion  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  The  New  England  divinity  was  born  in  a 
revival  of  religion,  and  was  specially  designed  to  promote  revivals. 
It  was  held  and  propagated  by  the  friends  and  promoters  of  great 
revivals.  Against  this  theology,  under  the  name  of  Hopkinsian- 
ism,  a  fierce  assault  was  made.  This  was  followed  by  a  new  cam- 
paign, in  which  the  watchword  was  Taylorism. 

Peculiar  interest  was  felt  in  this  conflict  by  the  opposing  Pres- 
byterian party,  because,  by  reason  of  the  plan  of  union,  early  estab- 
lished at  the  proposal  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  New  England 
divines  were  continually  entering  that  Church,  carrying  with  them 
their  divinity,  and  their  views  of  the  expediency  of  prosecuting 
benevolent  enterprises  by  means  of  voluntary  associations,  in  which 
both  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  could  cooperate.  The 
result,  however,  was,  at  length,  that  New  England  theology  and 
New  England  measures  soon  began  to  exert  an  increasing  influence 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

To  counteract  this  influence,  the  opposing  portion  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  organized  benevolent  societies  designed  to  promote 
their  views,  placed  under  the  immediate  control  of  the  Church. 
Still,  however,  they  did  not  arrest  the  course  of  events.  The 
prevalence  of  New  England  views  and  measures  still  continued  to 
increase,  until  finally,  in  five  years  out  of  seven,  without  any  special 
effort  beforehand,  those  who  embraced  them  elected  the  Moder- 
ator, and  controlled  the  measures  of  the  General  Assembly.  To 
prevent  such  a  state  of  things,  their  opponents  had  already,  by  an 
early  foresight,  added  to  their  own  a  very  respectable  denomination, 
with  its  illustrious  leader,  to  maintain  the  balance  of  power. 

But,  as  still  the  danger  pressed,  but  two  courses  seemed  to  remain 
to  arrest  the  alarming  progress  of  New  England  influence  ;  either 
to  intimidate  the  leaders  and  their  flock  by  trials  for  heresy,  and 


INTRODUCTORY    HISTORICAL   STATEMENT.  1 

exclusion  from  the  Church,  or  to  revolutionize  the  Church  itself. 
They  tried  them  both.  In  the  attempt  to  convict  me  of  funda- 
mental error,  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  the  word  of  God,  they  could  not  approach  a  majority.  They 
resorted,  therefore,  to  the  second  course ;  and,  having  accidentally  a 
majority,  they  expelled  from  the  Church,  without  trial,  and  by 
lawless  violence,  enough  of  the  New  England  element  to  restore  to 
themselves  the  ascendency.  Those  thus  expelled,  and  their  friends, 
gathered  themselves  together  on  the  basis  of  the  constitution  which 
had  been  so  grossly  violated,  and  organized  the  true  constitutional 
General  Assembly ;  and  thus,  as  once  before,  was  the  Presbyterian 
Church  rent  in  twain. 

From  this  brief  narration,  it  is  plain  that  the  trials  to  which  I 
have  referred  were  a  great  development  of  results  in  the  theological 
history  of  this  country.  The  accumulating  influence  of  the  con- 
flicts of  many  years  then  came  to  a  crisis.  For  this  reason,  it  has 
appeared  to  me  important  to  preserve  a  full  account  of  those  trials, 
as,  perhaps,  more  fully  than  anything  else  representing  the  spirit 
and  body  of  the  times,  and  furnishing  indispensable  materials  for 
the  future  history  of  our  Church  and  nation. 

Accordingly,  I  have  taken  pains  to  preserve  in  this  volume,  not 
only  an  account  of  the  trial  to  which  I  was  subjected,  but  the 
printed  documents  essential  to  a  full  understanding  of  it. 

Of  these,  some  were  written  before  the  outbreak  of  the  general 
assault  on  the  views  of  Dr.  Taylor,  of  New  Haven,  and  others  sub- 
sequently. It  is  important,  therefore,  to  say  a  few  words  respecting 
my  relations  to  that  controversy.  The  design  of  those  who  assailed 
Dr.  Taylor  was,  if  possible,  to  exclude  him  and  his  sentiments  from 
the  fellowship  of  the  New  England  Churches.  His  most  earnest 
opposer  had  been  formerly  known  as  a  zealous  and  decided 
New  England  divinity  man.  But,  alarmed  at  the  spread  of  the 
opinions  of  Dr.  Taylor,  he  undertook  the  work  of  assailing  them, 
not  only  in  New  England,  but  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
He,   and   his   friends  also,  were  desirous   that   I    should  engage 


8  INTRODUCTORY   HISTORICAL  STATEMENT. 

with  them  in  the  work  of  arresting  Dr.  Taylor's  opinions.  This, 
for  many  reasons,  I  refused  to  do.  In  the  first  place,  I  felt  that 
I  had  a  right  to  stand  on  independent  ground,  and  not  be  swept 
in  as  a  partisan  on  either  side.  Again,  in  many  things  of  great 
moment  I  agreed  with  Dr.  Taylor,  although  I  did  not  adopt  all 
parts  of  his  system.  Finally,  I  did  not  regard  those  parts  of  his 
system  which  were  most  violently  assailed,  even  if  erroneous,  as  of 
any  such  fundamental  consequence  as  to  exclude  him  from  the 
fellowship  of  the  New  England  and  Presbyterian  Churches. 

For  taking  this  ground,  I  was  violently  assailed  in  New  England 
before  my  removal  to  the  West,  and  also  after  my  arrival  there. 
Especially  on  my  trial,  great  efforts  were  made  to  employ  all  that 
had,  for  these  reasons,  been  written  against  me  in  New  England, 
and  all  the  odium  and  alarm  which  had  been  created  against  Dr. 
Taylor  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Before  the  coming  up  of  this  controversy,  although  well  known 
for  years  as  an  Edwardean  New  England  divine,  I  had  enjoyed  the 
aflfection  and  confidence  of  the  leading  men  among  the  Princeton 
divines,  and  had  been  earnestly  requested  by  them,  as  will  soon 
appear,  to  enter  the  Presbyterian  Church,  they  pledging  to  me  their 
fellowship  and  cooperation.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  obscure  what 
were  the  probable  reasons  of  the  effort  to  crush  me,  which  was  made 
just  before  and  after  I  entered  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Then 
the  Princeton  and  metropolitan  power  was  relatively  waning  in  the 
Church,  and  to  prevent  a  result  so  unwelcome,  three  prominent 
leaders  of  the  opposite  party  were  successively  put  on  trial,  of  whom 
I  was  counted  worthy  to  be  one. 

The  charges  against  me  were  chiefly  based  upon  certain  sermons 
of  mine,  of  which  those  on  the  Native  Character  of  Man  hold  the 
first  place.  These  were  published  in  1827,  and  caused,  at  that  time, 
no  excitement  or  alarm  anywhere.  Much  use  was  also  made  of  my 
sermon  on  the  Dependence  and  Free  Agency  of  Man,  published 
just  before  I  left  New  England  for  the  West,  which  also  was 
received  with   general   approbation.      These  are  reprinted  in  the 


INTRODUCTORY   HISTORICAL   STATEMENT.  9 

commcncmcnt  of  the  present  volume.  Reference  was  also  made  to 
the  sermon  on  the  Faith  Once  Delivered  to  the  Saints,  which  has 
been  already  published  in  the  second  volume;  and  which,  at  the 
time  of  its  publication,  received  the  approval  of  Dr.  Greene,  then 
the  honored  father  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Among  the  documents  written  by  others,  and  quoted  against  me, 
was  one  by  an  anonymous  writer,  signing  himself  an  Edwardean, — 
a  violent  and  bitter  assailant  of  Dr.  Taylor,  —  who  U)  this  day  has  not 
thought  fit  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  writing  a  work  which  was 
so  generally  regarded  with  regret  by  his  friends.  Another  was  a 
letter  to  me,  by  the  Rev.  Asa  Rand,  the  origin  of  which  seems  to 
have  been  his  dissatisfaction  that  I  did  not  adopt  and  defend  those 
peculiarities  of  the  taste  scheme  which  he  regarded  as  of  funda- 
mental importance.  The  object  for  which  these  documents  were 
quoted  was  to  produce  the  impression  at  the  West  that  I  was 
extensively  regarded  at  the  East  as  not  sound  in  the  faith,  even 
before  I  removed  from  New  England. 

In  addition  to  these  things,  strenuous  efforts  were  made  to  connect 
me  with  whatever  was  peculiarly  odious  or  alarming  just  at  that 
time.  In  particular,  the  prosecutor  sought  to  associate  me  with 
certain  recent  and  odious  developments  of  Perfectionism,  with  which 
I  had  never  had  any  connection  but  as  an  opponent. 

Moreover,  as  much  alarm  and  hostility  had  been  excited  by  the 
sentiments  and  measures  of  Mr.  Finney,  an  attempt  was  also  made 
to  identify  me  with  him. 

When  it  is  considered  how  inadequate  and  often  erroneous  were 
the  views  of  many  concerning  the  opinions  of  all  with  whom  it  was 
thus  sought  to  identify  me  in  odium,  some  faint  conception  may  be 
formed,  at  this  day,  of  the  nature  and  power  of  the  effort  thus  made 
to  blast  my  reputation,  and  destroy  my  influence  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  especially  in  a  Theological  Seminary. 

Recourse  was  had  also  to  certain  statements  which  I  had  made 
with  reference  to  the  incorporation  of  a  false  philosophy  with  the 
creeds  of  the  Reformation,  which  seemed  to  implicate  the  standards 


10  INTRODUCTORY    HISTORICAL   STATEMENT. 

cf  the  Presbyterian  Church.  These  statements,  however,  were 
made  on  the  assumption  that  the  ancient  interpretation,  which  had 
ever  been  regarded  by  New  England  divines  as  the  true  one,  was, 
in  fact,  the  true  one.  But  about  the  time  of  my  removal  to  the 
West  this  was  called  in  question  by  Princeton  divines,  and  a  new 
exposition  given  to  the  terms  of  the  creeds,  which,  obviating  the 
difl&culties  I  had  always  felt,  and  corresponding  with  my  own  belief, 
I  adopted  on  my  trial. 

To  make  the  matter  plain,  it  is  enough  to  advert  to  the  fact,  that 
on  comparing  the  statements  which  I  have  made  in  vol.  i.  pp.  65 — 
68,  concerning  the  creeds  of  the  Keformation,  with  my  statements 
concerning  them  in  my  subsequent  trials,  at  first  sight  there  might 
appear  to  be  an  inconsistency  between  the  two.  There  is,  how- 
ever, in  fact,  no  inconsistency.  The  difference  arises  from  the 
change  just  mentioned  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  of  the  creeds  of  the  Reformation,  on  certain  points.  To 
illustrate  this,  we  need  only  to  refer  to  some  prominent  historical 
facts. • 

For  many  years  the  Edwardean  divines  of  New  England  regarded 
the  Confession  of  Faith  as  teaching  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to 
his  posterity,  and  their  guilt  and  exposure  to  punishment  for  his 
act,  in  its  strict  sense,  and  according  to  the  obvious  and  popular 
import  of  the  language  used.  It  was  also  regarded  as  teaching  the 
absolute  and  natural  inability  of  sinners  to  perform  the  duties 
demanded  of  them  by  God.  To  these  doctrines  were  added  the 
doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement,  and  of  an  eternal  election  based  on 
such  limitation.  Not  only  did  the  New  England  divines  suppose 
that  these  doctrines  were  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  but  the 
old  school  Presbyterians  of  the  Middle  States  asserted  the  same. 
On  this  ground  they  were  assailed  by  Whelpley  in  his  "  Triangle." 
Nor  in  reply  did  they  ever  intimate  that  they  did  not  regard  the 
doctrines  which  he  assailed  as  the  true  sense  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith.     It  was  with  this  view  of  the  import  of  these  standards  that 


INTRODUCTORY   HISTORICAL   STATEMENT.  11 

I  used  the  language  referred  to,  and  all  similar  language  used  before 
my  removal  to  the  West. 

It  so  happened,  however,  that,  about  the  time  of  my  removal,  the 
Princeton  divines,  under  the  stress  of  their  controversies  with  New 
England,  introduced  a  new  exposition  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  on 
the  most  important  and  difficult  of  these  points,  —  I  refer  to  the 
imputation  and  guilt  of  Adam's  sin.  In  this  they  denied  all  that 
the  New  England  divines  had  opposed, — namely,  a  mysterious  union 
with  Adam,  so  as  literally  to  sin  in  his  sin;  or  a  transfer  of  his 
moral  character  to  us ;  or  any  real  and  proper  guilt  for  his  act, 
and  any  true  and  proper  punishment  for  it.  They  contended  that 
the  words  guilt  and  punishment  were  not  to  be  taken  in  their  com- 
mon and  popular  sense,  but  in  a  sense  strictly  technical  and  theologi- 
cal, to  denote  social  liability  to  evil,  in  consequence  of  the  act  of 
Adam,  which  evil  is  technically  called  punishment. 

These  views  were  set  forth  at  length  in  the  Princeton  Repertory 
and  in  Hodge's  Commentary  on  the  Romans ;  and  it  was  affirmed 
that  they  had  been  the  views  of  the  Reformers  from  the  beginning, 
and  of  the  Orthodox  as  far  back  as  to  the  days  of  Augustine.  Of 
this  they  quoted  what  seemed  to  be  sufficient  proof. 

The  effect  of  this  was  a  renunciation  of  the  old  Triangular  inter- 
pretation (so  called),  by  which  the  Confession  of  Faith  was  brought 
into  accordance  with  the  views  which  New  England  divines  and  I 
myself  liad  always  defended,  rejecting  what  we  had  always  regarded 
as  false  and  pernicious  theories,  interwoven  with  the  real  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel.  In  these  circumstances,  I  saw  no  reason  for  not 
adopting  this  mode  of  interpreting  the  Confession,  and  did  adopt  it. 
I  also  so  interpreted  the  language  used  to  express  the  sinner's  ina- 
bility as  to  accord  with  my  interpretation  of  similar  language  in 
the  Bible ;  that  is,  so  as  to  denote  moral  inability,  or  a  strong  and 
voluntary  aversion  to  duty.  The  doctrine  of  limited  atonement  I 
do  not  regard  as  taught  in  the  Confession. 

As  thus  interpreted,  it  is  plain  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  is 
free  from  the  false  theories  which,  according  to  the  first  mode  of 


12  INTRODUCTORY   HISTORICAL  STATEMENT. 

interpretation,  rendered  it  justly  liable  to  the  censures  which  I 
bestowed  upon  it.  As  first  understood,  I  do  not  retract  those  censures. 
But  understood  as  I  interpreted  it,  in  accordance  with  the  Princeton 
divines,  it  deserves  the  commendations  which  I  have  bestowed  upon 
it,  so  far  as  the  substance  of  doctrine  is  concerned,  though  such  a 
technical  use  of  the  terms  guilt,  jmnishment,  &c.,  is  not  desirable, 
because  so  liable  to  be  misunderstood. 

I  ought,  however,  to  add,  that  this  interpretation  of  Princeton 
was  an  entire  innovation  on  the  old  Triangular  theology,  which  for 
many  years  had  so  violently  assailed  the  New  England  divines. 
They  retained,  to  be  sure,  the  old  words,  but  they  gave  them  a  New 
England  sense,  and  affirmed  that  it  was  the  true  and  original 
sense. 

Since  then,  the  Princeton  divines  seem  to  have  pursued  an  uncer- 
tain course.  They  have  not  formally  renounced  their  late  ground, 
and  I  trust  they  will  not ;  and  yet  they  have  quoted,  with  applause, 
men  who  teach  the  doctrine  of  imputation  in  the  very  sense  in 
which  they  formerly  disclaimed  it.  Whether  this  has  arisen  from 
the  want  of  perspicacity,  or  from  a  real  change  of  opinion,  or  from 
a  desire  to  please  both  sides,  I  am  unable  to  say. 

One  thing,  however,  must  be  admitted  as  true,  —  that  there  are 
many,  both  in  this  country  and  in  the  Old  World,  who  are  not  yet 
willing  to  adopt  their  New  England  exposition  of  the  standards  of 
their  Church,  but  still  hold  them  in  such  a  sense  as  to  be  exposed 
to  the  criticisms  which  I  originally  directed  against  that  exposi- 
tion. 

There  is  reason  to  hope  that  the  recent  Princeton  exposition  of 
the  standards  will  be  received  as  the  true  one,  for  it  is  by  all  means 
to  be  desired  that  the  influence  of  documents  so  ancient  and  powerful 
should  be  on  the  side  of  truth.  On  this  supposition,  I  wish  my 
censures  to  be  understood  not  as  directed  against  the  standards, 
but  against  a  prevalent,  erroneous  and  injurious  interpretation  of 
them. 


i^^^-^ ^-r^'^r.,^ 

SERMON    I. 

DEPENDENCE   AND    FREE   AGENCY. 
*'  Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing."  —  John  15  :  5. 

It  is  manifest,  from  the  Bible,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
acting  Divinity  of  the  universe.  Everywhere  the  attributes, 
■works  and  worship,  which  belong  to  God,  are  ascribed  to 
him.  Omniscience,  omnipresence,  omnipotence,  eternity, 
immutabihty,  infinite  benevolence,  justice,  mercy  and  truth, 
are  his  attributes ;  and  his  works  are  such  as  correspond  with 
them.  He  made  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist. 
It  is  He  who  in  the  beginning  said,  "  Let  there  be  light,  and 
there  was  light ; "  who  is  revealed  as  ''upholding  all  things 
by  the  word  of  his  power;"  who  governs  material  agents, 
and  sways  the  sceptre  of  moral  empire  over  earth  and  heaven. 
The  law  is  in  his  hand  as  Mediator,  and  the  Gospel  with  its 
remedial  influence;  and  he  is  "head  over  all  things  to  the 
church."  It  was  his  praise  which  the  morning  stars  "sang 
to  ""ether,''  and  which  animated  the  heavenly  host  when  they 
shouted,  "Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace, 
good  will  toward  men." 

The  text  announces  the  universal  and  entire  dominion  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  universal  and  entire  dependence  of  man 
upon  him  for  ability  to  do  anything.  This  dependence,  hke 
the  nature  of  his  government,  is  of  two  kinds,  natural  and 
moral.     The  one  is  occasioned  by  our  incapacity  of  self-exist- 

VOL.   III.  2 


14  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

ence,  and  self-sustained  physical  action.  The  other  is  a 
dependence  resulting  from  our  sinful  character,  and  the  con- 
sequent necessity  of  an  atonement  and  a  moral  renovation  to 
secure  our  pardon  and  meetness  for  heaven. 

I  propose,  in  this  discourse,  to  give  a  Scriptural  account 
of  the  dependence  of  man  upon  Jesus  Christ,  in  both  these 
respects  ;  as  a  creature  and  as  a  sinner. 

As  a  creature,  it  is  obvious  that  man  is  dependent  on 
Christ  for  all  his  natural  and  moral  powers.  In  his  material 
organization,  it  was  Christ  that  "did  see  his  substance  yet 
being  unperfect,  and  in  whose  book  all  his  members  were 
written,  which  in  continuance  were  fashioned,  when  as  yet 
there  was  none  of  them."  It  was  Christ  who  created  his 
mind,  his  power  of  thought,  and  of  mental  and  moral  action ; 
his  perception,  judgment,  reason ;  his  capacity  of  happiness 
and  misery  ;  his  ability  —  under  the  guidance  and  influence 
o£»the  government  of  God  —  to  choose  the  good  and  refuse 
the  evil.  These  are  all  attributes  given  him  in  creation,  and 
from  the  constitution  a<icording  to  which  his  being  will  be 
continued. 

But  is  there,  in  this  beautiful  structure  of  body  and  mind, 
any  self-preserving  energy,  that  can  dispense  with  the  con- 
stant upholding  power  of  Christ  ?  None.  Nothing  is  self- 
existent  but  God.  "In  him  [Christ]  we  live,  and  move,  and 
have  our  being."  That  he  is  as  able  to  create  mind  as  to 
create  matter,  who  can  doubt  ?  That  he  is  as  able  to  create 
accountable  agents,  to  be  governed  by  the  laws  and  admin- 
istration of  his  moral  kingdom,  as  to  create  animals  to  be  gov- 
erned by  appetite  and  instinct,  who  will  deny  ?  And  that  ho 
has  created  and  does  uphold  and  govern  man,  as  a  rational, 
free,  and  accountable  agent,  we  know,  not  only  from  his  own 
testimony,  but  from  our  own  perfect  consciousness. 


DEPENDENCE  AND  FREE  AGENCY.  15 

It  is  equally  apparent  from  Revelation,  that  men  arc  de- 
pendent on  Jesus  Christ  for  the  successful  application  of  their 
natural  powers.  The  springs  of  life  and  the  occasions  of 
disease  are  all  at  his  disposal.  The  great  laws  of  nature  are 
the  instruments  of  his  power,  to  kill  and  to  make  alive.  When 
he  purifies  the  atmosphere,  health  follows  the  journeys  of  the 
sun  ;  and  when  he  gives  commandment,  the  poisonous  epi- 
demic moves  onward,  and  wraps  around  the  earth  the  belt 
of  death.  There  is  no  skill  that  can  fortify  against  it,  no 
flight  that  can  escape  it,  no  power  that  can  resist  it.  And 
when  he  would  save,  there  arc  no  perils  that  can  baffle  his 
protection.  Myriads  burst  into  being,  and  rise  up  under  his 
smile,  and  at  his  displeasure  melt  away  like  vapors  before  the 
sun. 

This  dependence  upon  Christ  for  successful  effort  extends 
to  the  intellectual  as  w*ell  as  to  the  physical  nature  of  man. 
Through  the  medium  of  disease,  he  can  send  upon  the  mind 
bewildered  thoughts,  impaired  memory,  incapacity  of  attention, 
instability  of  purpose,  and  fear  and  faintness  of  heart.  Upon 
the  ordering  of  his  Providence  depend,  also,  not  only  our 
capacities,  but  all  our  opportunities  for  successful  action. 
All  have  not  been  Luthers,  or  Bonapartes,  who  may  have 
possessed  the  capacity  of  acting  the  part  which  they  acted. 
lie  who  creates  the  endowments  of  man  puts  them  into 
ample  requisition,  or  sends  them  into  relative  obscurity.  Nor 
is  it  in  the  power  of  human  greatness,  even  with  opportunity, 
to  secure  the  successful  execution  of  the  wisest  plans ;  for 
this  depends  on  innumerable  contingencies,  unforeseen  to  any 
but  the  eye  of  God ;  upon  natural  causes,  unmanageable  by 
human  power;  and  upon  human  volitions,  affected  by  the 
innumerable  motives  included  in  the  ever-varying  Providence 
of  God ;  and  on  the  passions  and  prejudices  and  conflicting 


16  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

interests  of  men.  Nothing  is  more  impenetrable  than  the 
veil  which  hides  from  man  those  events  of  futurity  which 
depend  on  human  volitions  and  actions. 

Such  is  the  dependence  of  man  upon  Christ  as  a  creature. 
But  there  is  another  kind  of  dependence,  resulting  from  his 
character  and  condition  as  a  sinner.  This  condition  is  hope- 
less, without  Christ.  Direct  forgiveness  of  sin,  on  condition 
of  repentance,  is  impossible,  upon  principles  of  law.  To  make 
an  atonement,  was  what  man  could  not  do ;  and  to  save  with- 
out an  atonement,  was  ''  what  the  law  could  not  do."  The 
influence  of  law  depends  on  its  rewards  and  its  penalties. 
Suspend  these,  and  you  paralyze  its  power,  and  in  the  same 
degree  you  impair  its  influence  upon  the  mind,  and  open  the 
door  to  rebellion  and  anarchy. 

For  that  influence,  therefore,  which  sustains  the  law  of 
God,  and  opens  the  door  of  mercy  to  a  lost  world,  men  are 
dependent  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  law  could  not 
forgive  and  maintain  its  power.  Angels  could  make  no 
atonement,  and  no  man  could  redeem  his  brother.  Works 
could  not  justify,  and  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the 
ashes  of  an  heifer,  could  not  take  away  sin.  Thousands  of 
rams,  and  of  rivers  of  oil,  and  the  blood  of  the  first-born, 
could  not  purchase  redemption.  The  inability  of  man  to 
make  an  atonement  for  sin  was  therefore  a  natural  impos- 
sibility, absolute  and  entire. 

It  must  be  added,  also,  that,  as  sinners,  men  are  dependent 
on  Christ  for  a  willingness  to  do  anything  which  will  save 
their  souls.  This  is  not  a  dependence  created  by  any  such 
constitutional  defect  of  mind  as  renders  obedience  to  the  ex- 
tent of  divine  requirement  a  natural  impossibility  ;  or  by  any 
destruction  which  sin  has  occasioned  of  the  powers  requisite 
to  free  agency  and  accountability.     These  all  remain,  per- 


DEPENDENCE    AND    FREE    AOENCY.  17 

verted,  indeed, —  wholly  perverted,  and  hopeless  of  recovery 
•without  the  grace  of  God, —  but  not  annihilated,  or  impaired 
in  respect  to  their  competency  to  create  perfect  obligation,  and 
to  sustain,  in  joy  or  in  woe  forever,  all  the  responsibilities  of 
the  government  of  God,  as  obeyed  or  disobeyed. 

Man  is  not  so  constituted  as  that  no  choice,  good  or  evil, 
can  be  originated  by  him,  which  God,  by  an  immediate  effi- 
ciency, does  not  produce.  Nor  is  he  made  accountable  for 
a  nature  which  was  created  in  him  as  really  as  his  intellect 
or  his  bones  and  sinews;  nor  for  moral  qualities,  which 
are  as  involuntary  as  his  appetites  or  his  instincts,  and  which 
render  choice,  not  in  accordance  with  them,  a  natural  impos- 
sibility. 

The  dependence  of  man  upon  Christ  is  in  no  sense  the 
dependence  of  his  deficient  constitution  as  a  free  agent,  but  of 
his  deficient  character  as  a  sinner, —  the  obstinate  perversion 
of  his  free  agency.  Still  it  is  a  dependence  not  the  less  real 
or  certain  :  for  a  sinner  may  wilfully  make  his  destruction 
certain,  and  render  grace  indispensable  to  avert  his  ruin.  It 
is  tliis  kind  of  dependence,  originating  in  the  obliquity  of  the 
will,  which  meets  and  baffles  our  unaided  efforts  at  every  step 
of  our  attempt  to  persuade  men  to  be  reconciled  to  God. 

Who,  without  the  grace  of  Christ,  can  keep  back  from  sin 
the  depraved  mind  of  individuals  and  communities;  or  rouse 
man  from  the  deep  slumbers  of  a  willing  ignorance  and  obsti- 
nate stupidity ;  or  bring  home  the  commandment,  and  flash 
in  upon  the  dark  unwilling  mind  the  painful  conviction  of 
sin'?  And  even  when  this  is  done,  who  can  subdue  the  will, 
but  He  who  commanded  the  lio-ht  to  shine  out  of  darkness, — 
but  lie  who  stilled  the  raging  tempest  on  the  sea, —  before 
whom  disease  fled,  and  death  yielded  up  its  victims?  It 
is  in  the  day  of  His  power  only  that  any  sinner  ever  submits 

VOL.    ITT.  2^ 


18  VIE^ys  of  theology. 

to  God,  and  becomes  a  willing  subject  of  bis  perfect  govern- 
ment. 

It  seems  to  be  tbougbt  by  sinners,  wben  ,tbey  are  awak- 
ened, and  pressed  with  obligation  to  submit,  that  their  act  of 
refusal  is  not  of  the  same  nature  with  other  acts  of  choice  ; 
that  if  it  be  in  some  sense  voluntary,  it  is  in  a  sense  so 
unique  as  greatly  to  mitigate,  if  not  to  annihilate,  its  crimi- 
nality. 

But,  in  respect  to  its  being  the  voluntary  action  of  the 
mind,  it  is  as  really  so  as  any  act  of  choice  whatever,  and  is 
distinguished  from  ordinary  volitions  only  by  this, —  that  it 
includes  and  absorbs,  more  entirely  than  any  other,  the  whole 
energy  of  the  mind,  and  comprehends  in  it  the  greatest 
amount  and  intensity  of  criminal  purpose  of  which  a  sinful 
mind  is  capable.  It  is  the  most  voluntary  and  the  most 
criminal  decision  of  which  a  sinner  is  capable,  and  made  in 
defiance  of  the  most  perfect  obligations  to  the  contrary. 
Thus  the  Holy  Ghost  decides,  when  he  comes  to  reprove  the 
world  of  sin,  because  they  believe  not.  And  yet  it  is  a 
decision,  in  point  of  fact,  irrevocable,  but  by  the  grace  of 
God. 

It  seems  to  be  a  fact,  in  the  history  of  perverted  mind,  that, 
once  ruined,  it  never  recovers  itself.  In  fallen  angels  it  has 
not,  in  fallen  man  it  does  not ;  but  the  disease  rages  on,  un- 
reclaimed by  its  own  miseries,  and  only  exasperated  by 
rejected  remedies.  The  way  of  man  is  not  in  himself  Wise 
is  he  to  do  evil,  but  to  do  good  he  has  no  knowledge.  The 
main-spring  of  the  soul  for  holy  action  is  gone,  and  divine 
influence  is  the  only  substitute.  It  is  the  sinner's  duty  to 
repent,  but  he  refuses.  It  is  his  duty  to  come  to  Christ,  but 
he  will  not.  His  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  and  he 
will  not  submit.     His  heart   is  fully  set  within  him  \o  do 


DEPENDENCE   AND   FREE   AGENCY.  19 

evil,  and  he  will  not  turn.  Motives  and  obligation  are  by  his 
obstinacy  swept  away.  The  blood  of  Christ  and  the  joys  of 
heaven  plead  in  vain;  and  in  vain  are  hell  and  destruction 
uncovered  before  him. 

"  Madness,  by  nature,  reigns  Tvithin, 
The  passions  burn  and  rage  ; 
Till  God's  own  Son,  with  skill  divine, 
The  inward  fire  assuage." 

I  have  only  to  add,  what  is  especially  taught  in  the  text, 
that  for  the  continuance  and  consummation  of  holiness  every 
Christian  is  dependent  on  Christ.  When  the  heart  is 
renewed,  it  possesses  no  self-preserving  energy.  If  angels, 
great  in  might  and  perfect  in  holiness,  and  Adam,  our  ances- 
tor, created  after  the  image  of  God,  could  fall,  how  feeble  is 
the  guarantee  of  the  continuance  and  consummation  of  holiness 
from  the  sufficiency  of  its  own  feeble  beginnings  !  The 
question  has  been  asked,  whether  it  is  possible  for  a  saint  to 
flill ;  and  the  answer  is,  that,  left  to  himself,  and  aside  from 
the  preservation  of  Christ,  it  is  not  only  possible  that  he  may 
fall,  but  certain  that  he  will  fall.  Not  because  his  growth 
in  grace  and  perseverance  is  a  natural  impossibility ;  not 
because  he  cannot  so  watch,  and  pray,  and  strive,  and  fight, 
as  to  endure  to  the  end;  but  because,  through  remaining 
sin,  and  deceitfulness,  and  sloth  of  heart,  he  will  not  watch, 
and  pray,  and  strive,  and  fight,  so  as  to  obtain  the  victory, 
except  as  Jesus  watches  over  him,  and  intercedes  for  him, 
and  sustains,  and  protects,  and  guides,  and  gives  him  the 
victory. 

To  this  plain  Scriptural  account  of  man's  dependence  on 
Christ  for  his  capacities  and  powers  of  action  as  a  free  agent, 
and  also  for  their  restoration  by  grace  to  their  unperverted 


20  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

exercise,  it  might  seem  as  if  no  objection  could  be  raised ;  and 
yet  no  subject  has  been  beset  with  objections  more  numerous, 
acute,  or  perplexing.  To  some  of  these  I  propose  to  attend, 
in  the  sequel  of  this  discourse. 

Objection  1.  It  is  objected  that  the  ''  doctrine  of  depend- 
ence on  the  sovereign  grace  of  God  for  the  commencement  and 
continuance  of  evangelical  obedience  is  inconsistent  with  the 
doctrine  of  man's  free  agency  and  accountability;  —  that  the 
two  doctrines  never  have  been  and  never  will  be  reconciled ;  — 
that  all  who  have  made  the  attempt  have  but  darkened  coun- 
sel by  words  without  knowledge ;  —  and  that  all  who  preach 
man's  dependence  on  the  Holy  Spirit  for  regeneration,  and 
then  call  upon  him  to  repent,  and  obey  the  Gospel,  contra- 
dict, in  one  part  of  their  discoursCj  what  they  inculcate  in 
another." 

Ansv/er.  If  the  dependence  of  a  sinner  upon  the  special 
influence  of  the  Spirit  for  ability  to  obey  the  Gospel  were 
occasioned  by  such  a  constitution  of  mind  as  renders  obedi- 
ence a  natural  impossibihty  —  for  want  of  adequate  powers,  or 
knowledge,  or  motives  —  then  it  would  be  impossible  to  recon- 
cile such  dependence  with  accountability ;  and  it  might  truly 
be  said  they  never  have  been  and  never  will  be  reconciled. 

It  must  certainly  be  admitted  that,  if  God  should  command 
-exercises  which  man  can  no  more  put  forth  than  he  can  create 
a  world,  and  should  not  himself  work  in  him  to  produce  them, 
it  would  be  the  requisition  of  a  natural  impossibility,  which 
could  not  be  reconciled  with  a  just  accountableness.  Or,  if 
he  should  command  a  change  of  moral  tastes  or  instincts, 
which  are  a  part  of  the  soul's  created  constitution,  upon  which 
the  will  cannot  act,  but  which  do  themselves  govern  the  will 
as  absolutely  as  the  helm  governs  the  ship,  then,  also,  the 
thing  required  would  be  a  natural  impossibility,  and  could  not 


DEPENDENCE   AND    FREE   AGENCY.  21 

be  reconciled  with  free  agency  and  accountability.  But  where 
is  the  inconsistency  with  free  agency  and  accountability  in 
the  present  case  ? 

God  commands  the  sinner  to  obey  the  Gospel ;  and  the  sin- 
ner, thoroughly  furnished  with  all  the  powers  and  means 
of  moral  agency,  refuses  to  obey.  Rewards,  threatenings, 
entreaties,  expostulations,  judgments  and  mercies,  exhaust 
their  power  upon  him,  and  he  refuses ;  he  lolll  not  come  to 
Christy  and  resists  alivays  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  what 
is  there  here  to  destroy  free  agency  ?  Who  puts  forth  a  more 
giant  free  agency  than  the  sinner,  fully  set  to  do  evil  7 
Would  flexible  wickedness  be  blamable,  and  is  inflexible  obsti- 
nacy blameless  7  If  depraved  a  little,  would  he  have  no  cloak 
for  his  sin ;  and  do  his  crimes  whiten,  and  his  obligations  fail, 
as  his  heart  strengthens  itself  in  opposition  to  God  7 

''But,  if  he  will  not  repent  unless  God,  by  his  special 
grace,  interpose,  how  can  he  be  to  blame  7"  He  can  be  to 
blame,  because  it  is  his  duty  to  repent  on  the  ground  of  his 
capacity  and  the  divine  requirement,  and  he  refuses.  He  can 
be  to  blame,  as  the  drunkard  can  be  for  his  intemperance, 
because  he  is  able  and  only  unwilling  to  reform ;  as  the  thief 
can  be,  though  he  may  never  cease  to  do  evil ;  as  the  pirate 
can  be,  though  he  may  go  on  to  shed  blood  till  justice  over- 
takes him. 

"  But  is  not  his  destruction  certain,  if  the  Lord  does  not 
have  mercy  upon  him 7"  Most  assuredly.  "Well,  then, 
how  can  he  be  to  blame  7  "  Because,  with  the  plenary  pow- 
ers of  a  free  agent,  he  has  violated  the  law  of  the  universe, 
and  trodden  under  foot  the  blood  of  atonement,  and  despised 
the  riches  of  the  goodness  of  God,  until  public  justice  demands 
his  death.  Cannot  a  criminal  deserve  punishment  unless 
•some  way  is  open  for  his  actual  escape  from  punishment, — 


22  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

a  way,  too,  which  shall  overrule  his  own  contemptuous  and 
obstinate  rejection  of  proffered  mercy  7 

And  what  has  the  certainty  of  his  perseverance  in  evil  to 
do  with  the  reality  of  his  free  agency,  or  the  mitigation  of 
his  guilt  ?  Is  uncertainty  of  choice  and  character  essential  to 
virtue '?  There  is  not  a  maxim  of  greater  folly.  Who  does 
not  knew  that  good  and  ill  desert  in  character  rises  with  the 
relative  certainty  of  its  continuance?  Is  not  the  glorious 
God  worthy  of  all  praise,  and  Jesus  Christ  of  all  confidence, 
and  Satan  of  all  execration,  though  the  choice  and  character 
of  each  will  never  change  ?  And  is  not  this  the  decision  of 
common  sense  ?  Whose  virtue  and  vice  have  reached  their 
height  or  degradation  more  entirely  than  those,  on  the  one 
hand,  whose  integrity  is  not  suspected  of  change,  or  whose 
baseness,  on  the  other,  is  hopeless  of  reformation  ?  The  sin- 
ner can  be  accountable,  then,  and  he  is  accountable,  for  his 
impenitence  and  unbelief,  though  he  will  not  turn,  and  God 
may  never  turn  him,  because  he  is  able  and  only  unwilling  to 
do  ^Yhat  God  commands,  and  which,  being  done,  would  save 
his  soul.  Indeed,  to  be  able  and  unwilling  to  obey  God  is 
the  only  possible  way  in  which  a  free  agent  can  become 
deserving  of  condemnation  and  punishment.  So  long  as  he 
is  able  and  willing  to  obey,  there  can  be  no  sin ;  and  the 
moment  the  ability  of  obedience  ceases,  the  commission  of  sin 
becomes  impossible.* 

Objection  2.  "  This  distinction  between  the  ability  of 
man  as  a  free  agent,  and  his  inability  as  a  sinner,  is  a  mere 
metaphysical  subtilty,  which  common  minds  cannot  under- 
stand, and  which  is  only  calculated  to  perplex  and  bewilder." 

Answer.     It  is  not  a  metaphysical  subtilty,  nor  a  distinc- 

*  Dr.  Wilson  founds  one  charge  of  heresy  on  this  passage. 


DEPENDENCE  AND   FREE  AGIENCY.  23 

lion  which  cannot  be  understood.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  a 
distinction  singularly  plain,  and  obvious  to  popular  apprehen- 
sion, and  one  recognized  and  sanctioned  by  the  common  sense 
of  all  mankind.  The  difference  between  unthinking  matter 
and  mind, —  between  a  beast  and  a  man,  an  idiot  and  a 
rational  being, —  between  government  by  instinct  or  force 
and  government  by  law, —  between  an  infant  who  cannot,  and 
a  sluggard  who  will  not  work, —  between  the  rich  man,  who 
is  able  and  unwiUing  to  give,  and  the  poor  man,  who  is  will- 
ing but  unable, —  between  subjects  who  are  compelled  to  fight 
against  their  country,  or  those  who  do  it  voluntarily, —  is  as 
plain  to  the  common  as  to  the  most  profound  minds.  There 
is  no  position  which  unites  more  universally  and  entirely  the 
suffrages  of  the  whole  human  race  than  the  necessity  of  a 
capacity  for  obedience  to  the  existence  of  obligation,  and  to  the 
desert  of  punishment  for  non- obedience.* 

The  belief,  in  natural  philosophy,  that  no  effect  can  exist 
without  a  cause,  is  not  more  deep  and  universal  in  the  mind 
of  man,  than  the  belief  that,  in  moral  government,  no  obhga- 
tion  can  be  created  without  a  cajjacity  coimnenstirate  ivith 
the  demand^  and  which  renders  it  iwacticahle  and  reason- 
able ;  and,  on  the  contrary,  where  all  the  requisite  powers 
are  beheved  to  exist,  and  their  required  exercise  is  prevented 
"mly  as  a  matter  of  choice,  there,  without  a  dissenting  voice, 
human  nature  awards  guilt  and  desert  of  punishment.  Man 
is  so  formed  as  to  see  and  feel  the  difference  between  his  own 
voluntary  and  involuntary  action.  His  knowledge  of  his  vol- 
untariness and  desert  is  of  all  knowledge  the  most  perfect ; 
and  so  perfect  that  he  cannot  reason  it  away  by  any  possible 
sophistry,  more  than  he  can  reason  away  his  eyesight  with 

*  Auotlicr  charge  is  based  ou  tliis  passage. 


24  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

his  eyes  open,  or  his  own  existence  against  consciousness. 
And  this  consciousness  of  accountability,  attached  to  his  own 
voluntary  action,  man  ascribes,  by  analogy,  to  the  voluntary 
actions  of  other  men ;  and  never,  in  his  own  case,  or  in  the 
case  of  others,  ascribes  it  to  any  actions  which  are  not  volun- 
tary, but  which  are  instinctive  or  coerced. 

This  is  the  basis  of  all  distinction  between  right  and  wrong, 
which  pervades  the  family  in  its  moral  government,  and  which 
runs  through  all  the  forrps  of  human  association  in  civil 
government.  And  no  doubt  the  same  analogy  guides  the 
judgment  and  feelings  of  angels,  and  all  the  high  intelligences 
of  the  universe;  insomuch,  that  the  intellect  and  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  universe  must  be  unmade  and  reversed,  before 
the  justice  of  God  can  be  reconciled  with  the  requisition  of 
natural  impossibilities,  and  the  punishment  of  subjects  for  not 
doing  what  they  could  not;  and  an  equal  reverse  of  the 
constitution  and  public  opinion  of  the  universe  must  take 
place,  before  the  voluntary,  obstinate  refusal  to  obey  the  com- 
mands of  God,  as  a  practicable  and  reasonable  service,  shall 
fail  to  bring  out  from  the  obedient  and  disobedient  alike  the 
universal  decision  of  guilt  and  just  condemnation. 

Is  it  a  metaphysical  trifle,  then,  whether  God  commands 
effects  in  his  moral  government,  without  an  adequate  ground 
or  reason  in  his  subjects  for  their  existence  1  Is  it  not  the 
pivot  on  which  turns  the  question  of  its  rectitude  or  injustice, 
of  the  riches  of  its  goodness  and  mercy,  or  its  unparalleled 
cruelty  and  severity  1  If  the  command  to  perform  natural 
impossibilities,  and  punishment  for  their  non-performance,  is 
not  unjust,  what  is  unjust  ?  What  could  the  most  high  God 
do  that  would  be  unjust  7 

It  has  been  said  that,  "  though  man  has  lost  his  abihty  to 
obey,  God  has  not  lost  his  right  to  command."     But  can  the 


DEPENDENCE   AND    FREE   AGENCY.  25 

rights  of  a  moral  government  survive  the  extinction  of  those 
attributes  ^vhich  constitute  accountability?  Had  the  fall 
produced  universal  idiocy,  would  the  rights  of  moral  govern- 
ment have  survived  the  universal  extinction  of  reason  7  Had 
the  fall  reduced  our  race  to  the  capacity  of  mere  animals, 
-would  the  rights  of  moral  government  have  still  remained  ] 
If  the  abihty  to  obey  were  as  really  gone  as  if  reason  wei-e 
extinct,  or  men  had  become  animals,  or  machines,  or  trees ; 
could  the  rights  of  moral  government  remain,  when  the  attri- 
butes of  accountability  had  ceased  to  be  ? 

The  capacity  of  man  for  moral  government  as  a  free  agent, 
tiiken  with  the  reasonableness  of  divine  requirements  as  corre- 
sponding with  it  and  sustained  by  it ;  and  the  dependence  of 
man,  as  a  sinner,  upon  the  free  and  sovereign  grace  of  God, 
are  the  pillars  of  the  Mediator's  throne ;  the  one  of  his  jus- 
tice, the  other  of  his  mercy.  These  distinctions,  therefore, 
are  not  trifles.  It  is  grace  abounding  in  the  restoration  to 
unperverted  action  of  free  agency  self- perverted  to  a  just 
condemnation,  which  inspires  and  perpetuates  the  song  which 
no 'one  but  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord  can  sins;. 

Objection  3.  "But  what  do  you  mean  by  natural 
ability  in  a  free  agent  to  put  forth  right  spiritual  exercises ; 
and  what  have  natural  powers  to  do  in  the  putting  forth  of 
holy  affections?  " 

Answer.  I  would  ask,  in  answer,  What  is  meant  by  the 
free  agency  of  man,  which  all  admit  to  be  real?  Does  it 
mean  only  the  unavoidable  necessity  of  sinning  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  natural  impossibility  of  obedience  on  the  other? 
But,  if  it  does  mean  anything  which  is  requisite  to  constitute 
obligation  and  guilt,  what  less  can  it  mean  than  the  capacity 
of  choice  and  action,  commensurate  with  the  divine  require- 
ment ?     Or  is  it  a  word  without  meaning,  which  has  come 

VOL.    III.  3 


26  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

down  with  our  creeds  to  amuse  the  ear,  and  keep  off  odium 
from  a  system  of  real  fatality  ? 

By  natural  ability,  I  mean  -^-hat  the  law  of  God  means, 
when  it  says,  ''Thoushalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
HEART,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength, 
and  with  all  thy  mind  ; "  and  what  the  Gospel  means,  when, 
in  the  form  of  a  parable,  it  declares,  that  he  gave  "  to  every 
man  according  to  his  several  abihty,"  and  that  the  moral 
obligation  to  improve  corresponded  with  the  talents  given, 
and  the  abihty  possessed  for  their  improvement. 

I  mean,  that  God  does  not  reap  where  he  has  not  sowed,  or 
gather  where  he  has  not  strewed ;  but  requires  according  to 
what  a  man  hath,  and  not  according  to  what  he  hath  not, — 
mu43h  of  him  to  whom  much  is  given,  and  little  of  him  to 
whom  httle  is  given. 

I  mean,  that  God  knows  how  to  create  intelhgent  beings, 
with  such  powers  of  mind  that,  being  upheld  and  placed 
under  law,  they  are  so  capable  of  obedience  as  to  create 
perfect  and  infinite  obligation  to  obey ;  the  violation  of 
which  brings  upon  the  sinner  a  just  condemnation  to  eternal 
death. 

I  mean,  what  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian 
and  Congregational  churches  means,*  that  "  God  hath  endued 
the  will  of  man  with  that  natural  liberty  and  power  of 
acting  upon  choice,  that  it  is  neither  forced,  nor  by  any  abso- 
lute necessity  of  nature  determined  to  do  good  or  evil;"  so 
that  by  his  decrees  "  neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin,  nor 
is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creatures,  nor  is  the 

*  See  articles  "  Free  Will,"  and  "  Of  God's  Eternal  Decree,"  in  Cam- 
bridge and  Saybrook  Platform,  and  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church. 


DEPENDENCE   AND    FREE   AGENCY.  27 

liberty  'or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather 
established." 

Objection  4.  But  it  is  said,  "It  seems  to  amount  to 
about  the  same  thing,  whether  a  man  cannot,  or  can  and 
will  not,  obey  the  Gospel,  or  whether  his  impotency  be 
natural  or  moral ;  hp  is  equally  certain  to  perish,  if  God  does 
not  remove  it."  ' 

Ansaver.  It  might  as  well  be  said  that  muscular  power 
perverted  is  as  if  it  were  not ;  that  intellect  perverted  is  the 
same  as  idiocy  ;  and  conscience  seared  is  the  same  as  if  none 
had  been  given ;  that  bread  rejected  to  starvation  is  the  same 
as  inevitable  famine, —  as  to  say  that  the  perversion  of  all  the 
competent  powers  of  obedience  is  the  same  thing  as  their 
non-existence. 

Does  it  amount  to  the  same  thing,  whether  a  man  cannot 
be  temperate,  or  can  be  and  will  not  ?  cannot  be  honest,  or 
can  be  and  will  not  ?  A  man,  as  a  free  agent,  may,  indeed, 
make  his  own  destruction  as  certain  as  if  he  could  not  help 
it.  But  does  it  make  no  difference,  as  to  his  character  and 
desert,  whether  he  perishes  from  the  natural  impossibility  of 
being  saved,  or  from  a  voluntary  obstinacy  in  rejecting  salva- 
tion 7  And  does  it  amount  to  the  same  thing,  in  respect  to 
God  and  his  glorious  government,  w^hether  sinners  fall  under 
the  operation  of  its  penalties  from  a  natural  impossibility  of 
escape,  or  by  a  voluntary  obstinacy  in  despising  the  riches  of 
the  goodness  of  God?  Provided  a  man,  as  a  matter  of 
certainty,  dies  at  a  given  time,  does  it  amount  to  the  same 
thing,  whether  he  was  killed  unavoidably,  or  committed 
suicide?*  was  thrust  off  a  precipice  against  his  will,  or  threw 
himself  off?  was  poisoned  unwittingly,  or  purposely  poisoned 
himself?  was  assassinated  by  the  dagger  of  another,  or  thrust 
a  dagger  into  his  own  bosom  ? 


28  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

Objection  5.  "  If  man,  as  a  free  agent,  is  able  of  him- 
self to  repent  and  obey  the  Gospel,  and  is  only  dependent  as  a 
sinner,  then  the  atonement  was  unnecessary,  and  he  may  be 
his  own  Saviour." 

Answer.  We  have  seen  that  the  dependence  of  man  on 
Clirist  for  an  atonement  was  created  by  the  natural  impossi- 
1)ility  of  his  making  one.  It  was  what  the  law  could  not  do, 
niid  man  could  not  do,  and  none  but  Christ  could  do.  But 
til 3  sinner's  dependence  on  the  Holy  Ghost  is  occasioned  by 
h!s  wilful  refusal  to  accept  the  atonement.  Had  he  been 
wiUing  to  accept  an  atonement,  he  could  not  have  made  one. 
But  his  voluntary  and  obstinate  rejection  of  the  atonement 
made  for  him,  and  offered  to  him,  is  what  renders  the  Holy 
Spirit  indispensable  to  his  salvation. 

Objection  6.  ''This  distinction  between  man's  natural 
ability,  as  a  free  agent,  and  his  dependence  only  as  a  sinner, 
is  a  mere  human  theory,  not  taught  in  the  Bible." 

Ans^yer.  It  is  a  distinction  taught  in  the  Bible  as 
plainly,  variously  and  copiously^  as  any  other  doctrine 
lohatever.  It  has  the  same  relation  to  the  system  of  revealed 
truth  which  the  being  of  God  has,  and  his  moral  government, 
and  the  sinfulness  of  man,  and  the  atonement,  and  renovation 
by  the  Spirit,  and  justice  in  condemnation,  and  grace  and 
mercy  in  redemption.  Like  the  doctrine  of  cause  and  effect 
in  the  natural  world,  it  is  assumed ;  like  the  being  of  God, 
it  is  taken  for  granted,  and  constantly  acted  upon ;  hke  the 
existence  of  man,  and  of  the  world,  it  is  treated  as  a  matter 
of  fact. 

Besides,  capacity,  as  the  ground  and  measure  of  obligation, 
is  expressly  recognized  as  a  fundamental  principle  of  the 
government  of  God.  The  law  itself  recognizes  it,  in  demand- 
ing love  with  all  the  heart,  soul,  mind  and  strength.     The 


DEPENDENCE   AND   FREE   ACIENCY.  29 

Gospel  recognizes  it,  in  the  bestowment  of  talents  upon  every 
iTiiin  according  to  liis  several  ability,  and  the  award  of  punish- 
ment for  ability  neglected  ;  and  by  repelling  as  a  slander  the 
implication  that  God  demands  the  performance  of  impossible 
service,  reaping  where  he  had  not  sowed,  &c.  Obligation  is 
expressly  graduated  according  to  what  a  man  hath,  and  not 
accordins:  to  what  he  hath  not, —  much  of  him  to  whom  much 
is  given,  and  little  of  him  to  whom  little  is  given.  Accord- 
ingly, evangelical  obedience  is  ever  enjoined  as  a  reasonable 
service,  for  which,  as  to  natural  power,  every  man  is 
thoroughly  furnished,  and  for  the  neglect  of  which  he  has  no 
excuse.  Obedience  is  represented  as  the  mind's  action,  and  a 
proper  object  of  command.  ''  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that 
labor."  "Make  you  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit,  for  why 
will  ye  die  ?  "  "  My  son,  give  me  thine  heart."  "  Beheve 
ovi  ih(i  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  "Repent  ye."  "  Turn  your- 
selves and  live  ye."  "  Humble  yourselves  in  the  sight  of  the 
Lord."  "  Learn  of  me.  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart." 
Do  all  these  mental  and  moral  acts,  commanded  under  the 
high  responsibilities  of  eternal  life  or  eternal  death,  as  utterly 
surpass  the  capacity  of  man,  as  the  making  of  worlds,  or 
raising  the  dead  ?  Instead  of  this,  unbelief  is  regarded  as  the 
sinner's  voluntary,  ungrateful,  wanton  act  of  moral  suicide, 
in  rejecting  Christ,  refusing  him,  setting  him  at  naught, 
treading  under  foot  his  blood,  always  resisting  his  Spirit,  and 
despising  the  riches  of  the  goodness  of  God.  So  far  is  it  from 
being  a  matter  of  natural  ira potency,  and  so  needless  is  it, 
that  it  is  set  forth  as  a  most  wonderful  phenomenon.  "  What 
could  have  been  done  more  to  my  vineyard  that  I  have  not 
done  in  it  ?  Wherefore,  when  I  looked  that  it  should  bring 
forth  grapes,  brought  it  forth  wild  grapes?"  "Hear,  0 
heavens :  and  give  ear,  0  earth :  for  the  Lord  hath  spoken :  — 

VOL.    ITT.  3* 


f 


30  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

r 

I  have  nourished  and  brought  up  children,  and  they  hav 
rebelled  against  me."     "He  marvelled  because  of  their  unb 
lief."     But  is  it  wonderful  that  nurtured  children  should  n 
do  impossible  things  ?      Is  it  wonderful  that  a  vineyard,  how| 
ever  cultivated,  should  not  produce  impossible  fruits  1    Coul 
it  be  marvellous  that  those  to  whom  an  act  of  faith  was  a: 
impossible  as  an  act  of  creation  should  not  work  miracles  ir 
its  production  ? 

But  it  is  admitted  that  no  new  faculties  are  created  in 
regeneration.     What,  then,  is  there  to  be  changed,  but  thej 
wiin     This,  as  we   have  seen,   is  the  change   commanded 
Alienation  is  the  crime,  reconciliation  the  duty.     Hence  the 
means  employed  by  Heaven  are  moral, —  the  law  of  the  Lord,  *^ 
the  word  of  God,  the  incorruptible  seed,  the  Gospel,  the  cross 
of  Christ,  the  blood  of  Christ.     But  what  fitness  have  moral  '^ 
means  for  overcoming  natural  impossibilities  ?     The  Gospel  ti 
might  as  well  be  employed  to  govern  the  material  universe,  I 
instead  of  the  law  of  gravity,  as  to  recover  alienated  mind,  1 
if  the  impediments  to  obedience  are  natural   impossibilities.    % 
And,  after  all,  who  has  ever  detected  the  mental  incapacity    i 
of  man  to  obey  the  Gospel?     The  motive  to  do  it  has  been 
immense,  and  has  wrought  powerfully  in  innumerable  cases ;     ' 
yet  no  defective  organization  has  been  found.     On  the  con-    ' 
trary,  every  attribute  which  can  be  conceived  as  requisite  to 
the  full  capacity  of  obedience  is  discovered ;  and  such  as 
under  every  form  of  government,   beside  that  of  God,    is 
admitted  to  constitute  entire  capacity,  and  perfect  accounta- 
bility.    The  sinner  has,   indeed,  abundant  evidence,  that  to 
turn   to   God  is  difficult;  evidence  enough  to  close  forever 
upon  him  every  avenue  of  hoj^e,  if  the  Lord  does  not  have 
mercy.     But  he  has  no  evidence  that  the  difficulty  consists  in 
the  want  of  capacity  for  evangelical  action.     On  the  contrary, 


DEPENDENCE   AND    FREE   AGENCY.  SI 

e/cry  step  of  \m  moral  history,  closely  scanned,  flashes  con- 
viction on  his  conscience  that  the  whole  impediment  is,  in  its 
nature,  increase  and  continuance,  voluntary.  He  is  con- 
scious of  setting  his  aiTections  on  things  below, —  of  minding 
earthly  and  neglecting  heavenly  things.  His  attention  to 
the  one,  and  neglect  of  the  other,  he  knows  to  be  voluntary ; 
and  his  stupidity,  and  his  darkness,  and  his  hardness  of  heart, 
are  the  natural  results  of  such  a  preference  of  the  world,  and 
neglect  of  the  soul  and  the  Gospel,  as  he  knows  himself  to 
have  been  guilty  of 

And  when  the  Holy  Ghost  comes  to  convince  of  sin,  what 
is  the  sin  of  which  he  convinces  ?  Is  it  the  sin  of  not  work- 
ing impossibilities  7  It  is  the  sin  of  unbelief;  he  reproves  the 
world  of  sin,  ''because  they  believe  not."  He  corroborates 
the  forebodings  and  convictions  of  conscience,  by  causing  the 
sinner  to  feel  and  confess  the  perversion  of  his  noble  powers, 
and  that  God  would  be  just  in  his  condemnation.  And  the 
more  clear  the  light  of  his  conviction  shines,  the  more  dis- 
tinct is  the  sinner's  perception  that  he  is  —  not  destitute  of 
capacity,  but  inflexibly  unwilling  to  obey  the  Gospel.  Docs 
the  Spirit  of  God  produce  convictions  which  are  contrary  to 
fact,  and  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  ?  Never. 
What,  then,  when  he  moves  on  to  that  work  of  sovereign 
mercy,  which  no  sinner  ever  resisted,  and  without  which  no 
one  ever  submitted  to  God, —  what  does  he  do  ?  When  he 
pours  the  daylight  of  omniscience  upon  the  soul,  and  comes 
to  search  out  what  is  amiss,  and  put  in  order  that  which  is 
out  of  the  way,  \vhat  impediment  to  obedience  does  he  find  to 
be  removed,  and  what  v»^ork  does  he  perform  ?  He  finds  only 
the  will  perverted,  and  obstinately  persisting  in  its  sinful 
choice  ;  and  in  the  day  of  his  power  all  he  accomplishes  is  to 
make  the  sinner  willing. 


32  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

Hence,  as  obstinate  disobedience  to  law  and  Gospel  can- 
not cancel  obligation  or  avert  condemnation,  those  are  pun- 
ished with  everlasting  destruction  to  whom  no  special  grace 
has  been  afforded,  on  the  simple  ground  of  the  perversion  of 
their  capacities,  as  free  agents,  to  purposes  of  evil.  It  is  not 
grace  resisted  alone,  but  the  ability  of  man  perverted  and 
abused,  that  brings  down  upon  him  aggravated  guilt  and 
condemnation.  The  influence  of  the  Spirit  belongs  wholly  to 
the  remedial  system.  Whereas  ability  commensurate  with 
requirement  is  the  equitable  and  everlasting  foundation  of  the 
eternal  moral  government  of  God. 

What  v>'as  it  which  stopped  the  mouth  of  the  man  without 
a  wedding  garment?  Would  he  have  stood  speechless, 
could  he  have  replied  truly  that  no  garment  had  been 
provided  for  him  ?  or  that  it  was  such  an  one  as  no  human 
power  could  put  on,  while  no  divine  power  had  been  sent  to 
his  aid  ? 

I  am  aware  that  inability  of  some  kind  to  obey  the 
Gospel  is  ascribed  to  man  in  the  Bible.  But  it  means  the 
impossibility  of  becoming  holy  by  any  philosophical  culture 
of  the  natural  powers,  or  by  any  possible  modification  of  our 
depraved  nature,  or  simply  by  the  inflexibility  of  an  iron  will. 
"  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God :  for  it  is  not  sub- 
ject to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be.  So  then  tliey 
that  are  in  the  flesh  ca?mo^  please  God!'''  ''No  man  can 
serve  two  masters."  "  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  mammon." 
' '  How  can  ye  believe  which  receive  honor  one  of  another, 
and  seek  not  the  honor  that  cometh  from  God  only  ?  "  "  The 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  for 
they  are  foolishness  unto  him  :  neither  can  he  know  them, 
because  they  are  spiritually  discerned."  ''Howc^yzye,  being 
evil,  speak  good  things?"     Do  these  and  similar  passages 


DEPENDENCE    AND    FREE    AGENCY.  83 

teach  tliat  it  is  an  absolute  natural  impossibility  for  an 
alienated  sinner  to  become  reconciled  to  God, —  to  crucify  the 
flesh  and  to  serve  God  in  spirit, —  to  abandon  mammon  and 
cleave  to  God, —  to  give  up  the  praise  of  men,  and  seek  the 
honor  that  cometh  from  God  ?  What  greater  injustice  could 
])e  done  to  God,  or  violence  to  the  Bible,  than  to  represent 
the  entire  requisitions  of  his  government  upon  the  heart  as 
the  demand  of  natural  impossibilities,  under  the  fearful  sanc- 
tions of  eternal  death?  Again,  it  is  said,  "No  man  can 
come  to  me,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me  draw 
him."  "Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing."  But  do  these 
and  similar  passages  intend  a  natural  impossibility?  Do  they 
not  rather  speak  a  language  appropriately  expressing  a  fixed 
aversion,  which  is  voluntary,  and  worthy  of  blame  ? 

There  is  a  single  maxim  of  interpretation,  which  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  all  exposition,  and  of  all  intelligible  intercourse 
of  man  with  man  by  signs,  which  sends  a  beam  of  light  on 
this  subject  throughout  the  Bible,  and  forbids  us  to  give  to 
these  passages  the  import  of  natural  inability,  and  compels  us 
to  understand  them  as  declaring  only  the  inflexible  obstinacy 
of  man  in  sin.  The  maxim  is,  that  language  is  to  be  under- 
stood in  accordance  with  the  known  attributes  of  the  subject. 
Now,  when  God  is  represented  as  legislating  for  the  natural 
world,  and  sending  out  his  commandment,  and  all  nature 
moves,  trembles,  rejoices,  obeys  and  praises  Him ;  are  we  per- 
mitted to  understand  that  the  material  creation,  in  all  its 
departments  of  suns,  and  comets,  and  worlds,  and  winds,  and 
waves,  and  mountains,  and  hills,  and  valleys,  and  cattle,  and 
creeping  things,  is  a  cluster  of  so  many  intelligences,  blessed 
with  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  pressed,  by  the  responsibili- 
ties of  accountable  creatures,  to  obey  and  to  praise  him  ? 
But  why  not?     Simply  because  we  are  acquainted  with  the 


34  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

attributes  of  these  things,  and,  from  the  known  absence  of 
intellect  and  voluntary  power,  are  constrained  to  understand 
the  phraseology  as  the  language  of  metaphor. 

By  what  authority,  then,  when  we  enter  the  moral  king- 
dom of  God,  composed  of  mind,  and  law,  and  free  agency, 
and  accountability,  and  justice,  and  grace,  and  reward,  and 
punishment,  do  we  disregard  the  known  attributes  of  account- 
able mind,  and  the  revealed  maxims  of  the  divine  moral  gov- 
ernment, and  give  to  inability,  when  applied  to  voluntary 
beings  and  commanded  duties,  a  passive  and  material  import  ? 
Was  there  ever  a  greater,  or  a  more  needless,  or  a  more  per- 
nicious, perversion  of  the  laws  of  exposition?  When  the 
entire  authority  of  heaven  is  made  to  bear  on  rational,  immor- 
tal, accountable  creatures,  under  the  high  responsibilities  of 
eternal  life  or  eternal  death,  and  these  commands  are  enforced 
by  entreaty  and  expostulation,  and  their  disregard  is  threat- 
ened with  eternal  ruin, —  when  the  glory  of  God  is  to  shine 
through  eternity  in  his  justice,  and  the  riches  of  his  goodness 
in  his  mercy, —  is  the  dark  lantern  of  human  inability  the  only 
surface  upon  which  the  light  is  to  fall  that  is  to  reflect  upon 
principalities  and  powers,  in  heavenly  places,  the  manifold 
wasdom  of  God  ?  No  language  is  more  frequent,  in  the  com- 
mon intercourse  of  men,  than  the  terms  unable^  ccmnot^  and 
the  like,  to  express  either  slight  or  determined  and  unchang- 
ing aversion.  And  the  same  use  of  these  terms  pervades  the 
Bible.  Inability,  meaning  only  voluntary  aversion,  or  per- 
manent choice  or  disinclination,  is  ascribed  to  God,  to  Christ, 
and  to  good  men,  in  as  strong  terms  as  inability  to  obey  the 
Gospel  is  ascribed  to  sinners. 

1.  To  God.  "God,  that  c«?^;^o^  lie."  "The  new  moons 
and  Sabbaths,  the  caUing  of  assemblies,  I  cannot  away  with." 


DEPENDENCE   AND   FREE   AGENCY.  35 

"Though  Moses  and  Samuel  stood  before  me,  yet  my  mind 
cui(J(l  not  be  toward  this  people." 

2.  To  Christ.  "He  could  there  do  no  mighty  work." 
"  IIow  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together, 
even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and 
ye  would  not." 

3.  To  good  men.  "  Can  ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink 
of  ?  "  "Whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin,  for 
his  seed  remaineth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is 
born  of  God."  Is  it  a  natural  impossibihty  for  a  Christian  to 
commit  sin  ? 

4.  To  unsanctified  men.  "This  is  a  hard  saying,  who 
can  hear  it?  "  "  And  Joshua  said  unto  the  iDCople,  Ye  can- 
not serve  the  Lord,  for  he  is  a  holy  God."  "  So  w^e  see  that 
they  coiddnot  enter  in,  because  of  unbelief."  "They  that 
are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God."  None  of  these  are 
natural  impossibilities,  and  only  moral  inabilities,  consisting 
in  voluntary  sinful  action. 

I  have  only  to  add,  that  nowhere  do  the  Scriptures  attach 
blame  to  an  inability,  resulting  from  inadequate  powers,  fic- 
ultics,  opportunities  or  means  ;  and  everywhere  they  do  hold 
men  accountable  where  the  natural  capacity  is  entire,  and 
men  are  only  obstinately  unwilling  to  obey.  There  is  not  an 
'nstance  upon  record  in  the  Bible,  in  which,  according  to  the 
laws  of  fair  interpretation,  a  natural  impossibility  of  perform- 
ing any  spiritual  duty  which  God  has  required  is  ascribed  to 
man. 

Objection  6.  "This  doctrine  of  man's  abihty  as  a  free 
agent,  and  of  his  dependence  on  Christ  only  as  a  sinner,  is  an 
innovation  upon  the  received  doctrine  of  the  orthodox  church, 
and  therefore  the  preceding  exposition  cannot  be  regarded  as 


36  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

correct.     Has  the  entire  church,  in  all  ages,  misunderstood 
the  Bible?" 

,  Answer.  The  facts  in  the  case  are  just  the  other  way. 
The  doctrine  of  man^s  free  agency  and  natural  ability 
as  the  ground  of  obligation  and  guilty  and  of  his  impo- 
tency  of  ivill  by  reason  of  siti,  has  been  the  received  doc- 
trine of  the  orthodox  church  in  all  ages. 

The  Christian  fathers  taught  the  free  agency  of  man,  in 
opposition  to  the  Stoics,  who  taught  the  doctrine  of  fate ;  to 
the  Gnostics,  who  taught  a  material  depravity  ;  and  to  the 
Manicheans,  who  taught  a  mental  depravity  in  the  essence  of 
the  soul.  They  taught  free  will, —  not  like  Pelagius,  in 
opposition  to  a  bias  of  will  to  evil,  occasioned  by  the  fall, 
but  in  opposition  to  a  natural  impossibility  of  right  action. 
In  this  view,  with  the  Gnostic  and  Manichean  heresies  before 
them,  Justin  Martyr  says  :  "  The  doctrine  of  the  Christians  is 
this  —  that  nothinor  is  done  or  suffered  accordinoj  to  fate,  but 
that  every  man  doth  good  or  evil  according  to  his  oum  free 
choice.''''  And  Origen  says  :  ''The  soul  acts  by  her  own 
choice,  and  it  is  free  for  her  to  incline  to  whatever  part  she 
willV  And  Chrysostom,  and  Oyprian,  and  Jerome,  are 
equally  full  and  explicit  on  the  subject.*  Indeed,  as  Cal- 
vin says  in  substance,  and  as  is  common  in  such  circum- 
stances, they  leaned  off  so  far  from  fatality  and  material  and 
mental  depravity  created  in  the  soul  —  as  doctrines  violating 
common  sense,  and  tending  to  sloth  —  that  sometimes  they 
seemed  by  the  capacity  of  free  will  to  supersede  the  necessity 
of  special  grace,  though  in  other  places  they  teach  that  man 
is  despoiled  of  all  strength  to  recover  himself  to  holiness  by 

*  See  quotations,  in  Edwards  on  the  Will,  pai-t  ii.  sect.  5,  and  in  Whitby 
on  the  Five  Points,  Discourse  iv.  chaps.  4  and  5. 


DEPENDENCE   AND   FREE   AGtENCY.  37 

his  free  Avill,  and  ascribe  everything  that  is  good  in  man  to 
the  Holy  Spirit.*  They  -were  far,  certainly,  from  being 
expert  theologians,  and  farther  still  from  being  correct  pliil- 
ologists,  in  the  exposition  of  the  Bible.  And  yet  they  did  per- 
ceive and  firmly  lay  hold  upon  the  twa  cardinal  points, —  of 
man's  free  agency  as  the  ground  of  his  obligation  ;  and  of  his 
dependence  on  special  grace  for  his  restoration  to  holiness. 

The  same  distinction  was  made  in  the  controversy  between 
Augustine  and  Pelagius.  They  did  not  use  the  term  f?'cetvlll 
in  the  same  sense,  however,  as  the  earlier  fathers.  In  this 
controversy  it  ceased  to  be  employed  in  opposition  to  fatalism 
and  material  and  mental  depravity,  and  to  teach  free  agency 
as  consisting  in  the  capacity  of  choice.  The  natural  ability  of 
man  as  a  free  agent,  and  as  the  foundation  of  moral  obliga- 
tion, and  guilt,  and  punishment,  was  not  denied,  but  was 
equally  admitted  on  both  sides.  The  dispute  respected  wholly 
the  character  of  man  as  affected  by  the  fall,  and  particularly 
of  his  will,  whether  it  is  jjoiverfully  biased  to  evil,  or  re- 
inains  free  from  bias,  and  equally  inclined  to  good  as  to 
evil :  whether  it  is  so  competent  by  its  own  power,  under 
the  moral  suasion  of  truth,  to  recover  itself  to  holiness  as 
actually  to  do  it ;  or  is  so  biased  and  sinfully  impotent 
as  to  render  a  spiritual  reformation  hopeless  but  by  the 
special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Augustine  insisted 
on  the  bias  of  the  will  to  evil,  in  consequence  of  the  fall,  and 
denied  its  self-restoring  energy;  while  Pelagius  denied  the 
perverting  influence  of  the  fall,  and  assorted  the  sufficiency  of 
the  will  and  of  the  suasion  of  truth  to  the  purposes  of  spir- 
itual renovation. 

The  distinction,  therefore,  made  in  this  discourse,  between 


Institutes,  book  u.  chap,  2,  sects.  4  and  9. 


VOL.  III. 


88  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

the  ability  of  man  as  a  free  agent,  and  his  dependence  as  a 
sinner,  was  recognized  hy  Augustine^  and  by  the  earlier 
fathers. 

The  same  distinction  was  made  by  the  Reformers,  and  by 
the  Calvinists  down  to  the  Synod  of  Dort. 

Luther  taught  the  natural  liberty  of  man  as  a  free  agent, 
and  the  bondage  of  his  will  as  a  totally-depraved  sinner. 
''  There  is,"  he  says,  "  no  restraint  either  on  the  divine  or 
human  will.  In  both  cases  the  will  does  what  it  does,  whether 
good  or  bad,  simply,  and  as  at  perfect  liberty,  in  the  exercise 
of  its  own  faculty.  ...  So  long  as  the  operative  grace  of  God 
is  absent  from  us,  everything  we  do  has  in  it  a  mixture  of 
evil ;  and,  therefore,  of  necessity,  our  works  avail  not  to  sal- 
vation. Here  I  do  not  mean  a  necessity  of  compulsion,  but 
a  necessity  as  to  the  certainty  of  the  event.  A  man  who 
has  not  the  spirit  of  God  does  evil  willingly  and  spontane- 
ously. He  is  not  violently  impelled,  against  his  will,  as  a 
thief  is  to  the  gallows.  But  the  man  cannot  alter  his  dispo- 
sition to  evil ;  nay,  even  though  he  may  be  externally  re- 
strained from  doing  evil,  he  is  averse  to  the  restraint,  and  his 
inchnation  remains  still  the  same.  Again,  when  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  pleased  to  change  the  will  of  a  bad  man,  the  new 
man  still  acts  voluntarily ;  he  is  not  compelled  by  the  Spirit 
to  determine  contrary  to  his  will,  but  his  will  itself  is 
changed,  and  he  cannot  now  do  otherwise  than  love  the  good, 
as  before  he  loved  the  evil;  "  *  that  is,  a  man  cannot  choose 
opposites  at  the  same  time  ;  cannot  choose  against  a  present 
choice  which  yet  remains. 

Calvin  declares  that  God  is  voluntary  in  his  goodness ; 
Satan  in  his  wickedness  ;   and  man  in  his  sin.     "  We  must 

*  De  Servo  Arbitrio,  as  quoted  in  Milner's  Church  History,  vol.  v.  cent. 
16,  chap.  12,  sect.  2. 


DEPENDENCE  AND   FREE  AGENCY.  39 

therefore  observe,"  he  says,  ''  that  man,  having  been  cor- 
rupted by  the  fall,  sins  voluntarily,  not  -svith  reluctance  or 
constraint ;  with  the  strongest  propensity  of  disposition,  not 
with  violent  coercion ;  with  the  bias  of  his  own  passions,  and 
not  with  external  compulsion."  He  quotes  Bernard,  as 
agreeing  with  Augustine,  in  saying,  "  Among  all  the  animals, 
man  alone  is  free ;  and  yet,  by  the  intervention  of  sin,  he  suf- 
fers a  species  of  violence,  but  from  the  ivill,  not  from 
nature,  so  that  he  is  not  thereby  deprived  of  his  innate 
liberty.''''  Both  Augustine  and  the  Reformers  speak,  indeed, 
of  the  bondage  of  the  will,  and  of  the  Aecessity  of  sinning, 
and  of  the  impossibihty  that  a  natural  man  should  turn  and 
save  himself  without  grace ;  but  they  explain  themselves  to 
mean  that  certainty  of  continuance  in  sin  which  arises  from  a 
perverted  free  agency,  and  not  from  any  natural  impossibility. 
For  "this  necessity" — they  say  expressly — "  is  voluntary." 
"We  are  oppressed  with  a  yoke,  but  no  other  than  that  of 
voluntary  servitude ;  therefore  our  servitude  renders  us  mis- 
erable, and  our  will  renders  us  inexcusable."  * 

The  Synod  of  Dort  say:  "Sincerely  and  most  truly  God 
shows  in  his  word  what  is  pleasing  to  him ;  namely,  that  they 
who  are  called  should  come  to  him.  That  many  who  are 
called  do  not  come,  and  are  not  converted, —  the  fault  of  this 
is  not  in  the  Gospel,  nor  in  Christ  offered  by  the  Gospel,  nor 
in  God  inviting  by  the  Gospel,  and  conferring  various  gifts 
on  them,  but  in  the  persons  themselves  who  are  invited."  f 

Owen  says :  "  Man  is  endued  with  such  a  liberty  of  will  as 
is  free  from  all  outward  compulsion  and  inward  necessity, 
having  an  elective  faculty  of  applying  itself  to  that  which 
seems  good  to  it.    Most  free  it  is  in  all  its  acts,  both  in  regard 

*  Calvin's  Institutes,  book  ii.  chap.  3,  sect.  5. 

t  Scott's  Articles  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  chaps,  m.  and  iv.  sects.  8  and  9. 


40  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

to  the  object  it  chooseth,  and  in  regard  to  that  vital  power 
and  faculty  whereby  it  worketh." 

It  is  true  that  the  Reformers,  and  the  disciples  of  Calvin, 
employ  language,  sometimes,  which  seems  to  deny  the  very 
existence  of  that  natural  ability  which  they  concede,  and  to 
confound  all  distinctions  between  natural  and  moral  govern- 
ment, and  to  throw  mankind  into  one  dark  mass  of  impotency 
and  death,  from  which  any  resurrection  by  human  power  is  a 
natural  impossibility.  But  a  fair  interpretation  of  their  lan- 
guage will,  for  the  most  part,  rescue  them  from  this  imputa- 
tion. And,  besides^  what  is  said  loosely  and  oratorically  by 
men  is  never  to  be  so  interpreted  as  to  set  aside  their  most 
careful,  deliberate,  elementary  definitions.  We  have  shown 
that  the  inability  ascribed  to  man  in  the  Bible  does  not  imply 
any  natural  impotency  to  spiritual  obedience.  But  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Bible  is  stronger,  and  more  unqualified,  than 
that  of  the  Reformers,  being  limited  and  explained  only  by  the 
known  attributes  of  the  subject ;  whereas  the  language  of  the 
Reformers  is,  at^  times,  specific  and  precise,  confining  the 
impotency  of  man  exclusively  to  the  will  —  fairly  implying 
only  a  moral,  and  not  a  natural  inability.  And  when  we 
consider  that,  in  all  their  controversies,  the  free  agency  and 
natural  ability  of  man  were  expressly  admitted  on  both  sides, 
and  the  sole  point  of  debate  was  the  moral  condition  of  the  will 
—  as  free  from  bias  or  under  bias  to  evil  —  by  what  authority 
shall  we  metamorphose  an  alleged  moral  impotency  into  a 
natural  hnposslbility^ — and  that  at  the  expense,  also,  of 
making  the  greatest  and  best  men  contradict  themselves  7 
Doubtless,  the  impression  often  made  by  their  language  has 
been  that  of  natural  impotency ;  and,  in  modern  days,  there 
may  be  those  who  have  not  understood  the  language  of  the 
Reformers  or  the  Bible  on  this  subject,  and  who  verily  believe 


DEPENDENCE   AND    FREE   AGENCY.  41 

tliat  both  tcacli  that  man  has  no  ability,  of  any  kind  or  de- 
gree, to  do  anything  Avhich  is  spiritually  good,  and  that  the 
rights  of  God  to  command  and  to  punish  survive  the  wreck 
and  extinction  in  his  subjects  of  all  the  elements  of  accounta- 
bility. Of  such,  if  there  be  such  in  the  church,  we  have  only 
to  say,  that  when,  for  the  time,  they  ought  to  be  teachers, 
they  have  need  that  some  one  should  teach  them  which  be  the 
first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God.  It  must  be  admitted, 
however,  that  from  the  primitive  age  down  to  the  time  of 
Edwards,  few  saw  the  subject  with  clearness,  or  treated  it 
with  uniform  precision  and  consistency.  His  appears  to  have 
been  the  mind  that  first  rose  above  the  mists  which  hunn;  over 
the  subject,  and  that  saw,  and  developed,  and  fixed  immuta- 
bly and  clearly,  its  great  outlines.  And,  like  the  law  of 
attraction  in  the  solar  system,  it  reduced  every  conflicting 
clement  of  theology  to  order ;  and  brought  out  from  clouds 
and  darkness  the  character  of  God ;  and  arm.ed  the  Gospel,  in 
its  faithful  ministration  from  that  day  to  this,  with  a  power 
unknown  to  it  since  it  passed  from  the  lips  of  inspired  men, 
and  was  committed  to  the  ministry  of  the  uninspired.  In  his 
treatise  on  the  will,  he  taught  and  proved  the  natural  capacity 
of  man  as  a  free  agent  and  commensurate  with  divine  require- 
ment; that  obligation  to  perform  impossibilities  cannot  be 
created ;  and  that  the  inability  of  man  to  obey  the  Gospel  con- 
sists simply  and  only  in  a  voluntary  opposing  inclination  or 
choice,  which,  the  more  inflexible  it  is,  and  the  more  certain 
it  is  never  to  be  given  up  without  special  grace,  the  more 
exceedingly  sinful  it  is  and  deserving  of  punishment.  Hence, 
as  simple  disobedience  constitutes  no  apology  for  sinning,  or 
necessity  for  continuing  to  sin,  he  taught  and  practised  the 
duty  of  calling  on  sinners  to  render  evangelical  obedience 
immediately,  whether  they  would  hear  or  whether  they  would 
VOL.  TTI.  4^^ 


42  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

forbear, —  repelling  the  plea  of  inability,  and  tearing  away 
excuses,  and,  by  the  authority  of  God,  and  the  hopes  of 
heaven,  and  the  fears  of  hell,  urging  them  to  immediate  sub- 
mission. From  him,  through  Bellamy,  and  Witherspoon,  and 
Hopkins,  and  Smalley,  and  West,  and  Strong,  and  Dwight, 
and  our  seminaries,  this  doctrine  of  man's  natural  ability  and 
obligation  as  a  free  agent  to  perform  evangelical  duties,  and 
his  inexcusable  moral  impotency  or  aversion,  increasing  in 
guilt  with  its  increasing  power,  have  become  the  received  doc- 
trines of  tlie  New  England  churches ;  and  the  preaching  of 
immediate  repentance  and  faith,  as  growing  out  of  them,  has 
been  the  practical  course  in  the  great  and  repeated  and  aug- 
menting revivals  of  our  land. 

Objection  7.  But  it  is  said,  "This  doctrine  of  man's 
free  agency  and  natural  ability  to  obey  the  Gospel  sets  aside 
the  doctrine  of  the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  regenera- 
tion :  for  if  man  is  of  himself  able  to  repent  and  believe,  there 
is  no  necessity  for  the  interposition  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Answer.  If  the  doctrine  of  free  agency  and  natural 
ability  does  set  aside  the  necessity  of  a  special  divine  influence 
in  regeneration,  it  cannot  be  true  ;  for  if  there  is  a  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  wliich  is  unquestionable  and  fundamental,  it  is 
that  of  fallen  man's  dependence  for  actual  holiness  on  the 
special  influence  of  the  Spirit ;  and  if  there  be  a  fact  which 
every  man  who  is  saved  learns  experimentally,  it  is  the  cer- 
tainty of  his  perdition,  if  Christ  by  liis  Spirit  does  not  subdue 
his  will,  and  reconcile  him  to  God. 

But  is  it  true  that,  if  man,  as  a  free  agent,  is  able  to  obey 
the  Gospel,  he  needs  no  influence  of  the  Spirit  to  secure  his 
actual  obedience?  Is  ability  to  obey  evidence  of  the  cer- 
tainty of  obedience  ?  Do  free  agents  perform  always  all  the 
duties  of  which  they  are  capable  7     Is  there  no  possible  way 


DEPENDENCE   AND    FREE   AGENCY.  43 

for  man  to  be  dependent  on  the  Holy  Spirit  for  obedience,  but 
such  a  constitution  of  mind  as  renders  obedience  a  natural 
impossibility?  May  not  alienated  subjects  be  voluntary  in 
their  rebellion,  and  at  the  same  time  so  obstinate  and  fully 
set  therein,  that  if  God  by  his  Spirit  does  not  overcome  their 
opposition,  they  "will  persist  in  it  forever  7  The  inference  is 
as  illogical  as  it  is  unscriptural,  that  ability  to  obey  the  Gos- 
pel implies  any  such  certainty  of  obedience  as  supersedes  the 
necessity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

I  am  aware  that  many  good  men  have  been  exceedingly 
jealous  for  God  on  this  subject,  supposing  that  they  augment 
the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  justice  and  the  mercy  and  the  power 
of  God,  in  exact  proportion  as  they  throw  down  the  sinner 
into  a  condition  of  natural  and  absolute  impotency.  But, 
while  I  appreciate  their  motives,  I  cannot  perceive  the  wisdom 
of  their  views.  What  possible  foil  to  set  off  the  evil  of  sin 
does  natural  impotency  possess  1  One  would  think  that  a 
subject  of  God's  glorious  government,  who  can,  but  will  not, 
obey  him,  might  appear  to  himself  and  to  the  universe  much 
more  accountable,  and  much  more  guilty,  in  the  day  of 
judgment,  than  one  whose  capacity  of  obedience  had  been 
wholly  annihilated  by  the  sin  of  Adam.  Does  it  illustrate 
the  glory  of  God's  justice  more  to  punish  the  helpless  and 
impotent,  than  to  punish  the  voluntary  but  incorrigible  ? 
Is  there  a  greater  display  of  mercy  in.  delivering  a  sinner 
from  the  calamity  of  a  ruined  constitution  which  makes 
obedience  a  natural  impossibility,  than  in  delivering  him  from 
a  perverseness  of  will  which  despises  the  riches  of  the  good- 
ness of  God,  and  renders  his  condemnation  as  inevitable  as  it 
is  just?  "What  is  the  view  which  will  press  on  the  reminis- 
cence of  the  blessed  in  glory,  and  perpetuate  the  praises  of 
heaven?      Will  it  be  a  natural  impossibility  removed;   or 


44  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

incorrigible  obstinacy  overcome  ?  As  to  tlie  power  of  God 
displayed  in  regeneration,  no  doubt  it  is  "the  exceeding 
greatness  of  bis  power  to  us-ward  who  believe,  according  to 
the  working  of  his  mighty  power  which  he  wrought  in  Christ, 
when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead."  But  which  is  the  great- 
est display  of  power,  to  change  the  natural  constitution  of  the 
mind,  or  to  reclaim  the  otherwise  indomitable  will  of  a  rebel 
to  loyalty  and  love  ?  Men  may  obliterate  natural  affection, 
and  form  habits  adverse  to  their  natural  constitution  ;  and  if 
it  were  only  some  material  or  intellectual  defect  to  be  supphed, 
or  obstacle  to  be  overcome,  or  some  taste  or  instinct  to  be 
changed,  it  might  seem  a  small  thing  for  God  to  rectify  the 
difficulty.  He  who  could  blot  out  and  light  up  in  a  moment 
all  the  material  orbs  of  the  universe,  with  their  apparatus  and 
intelhgent  inhabitants,  and  who  is  continually  creating  and 
ushering  into  being  minds  around  us,  might  seem  to  find  but 
small  occasion  to  display  the  exceeding  greatness  of  his  power, 
in  the  rectification  of  some  constitutional  defect.  But  when 
a  mind,  armed  with  such  terrific  power  of  accountable  action 
as  may  bear  justly  the  responsibihties  imposed  by  God's  eter- 
nal government,  becomes  so  alienated,  and  fully  set  on  evil, 
as  to  baffle  the  regular  influence  of  law  and  Gospel,  this 
creates  an  obstacle  to  the  reclaiming  of  that  mind  vast  and 
momentous ;  and  furnishes  occasion,  probably,  for  the  great- 
est display  of  omnipotence  ever  to  be  witnessed  by  the  uni- 
verse. 

The  question,  then,  which  awakens  the  fears  of  some  good 
men,  is  not,  as  they  suppose,  the  question  whether  man  is 
actually  dependent  on  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
for  regeneration ;  but  what  is  the  nature,  what  the  cause, 
ground  or  reason,  of  that  dependence  ?  Is  it  a  dependence 
created  by  a  natural  impossibility,  or  by  the  inflexible,  volun- 


DEPENDENCE   AND    FREE   AGENCY.  45 

taiy,  unreasonable  opposition  of  a  free  agent  to  tlie  perfect 
cliaracter  and  glorious  government  of  God?  From  tlie 
time  of  Edwards,  the  latter  lias  been,  and  now  is,  the 
received  doctrine  of  the  ministers  and  churches  of  New 
England.  And  yet  —  plain  as  this  subject  would  seem  to 
be,  and  for  more  than  half  a  century  settled  —  still  it  is  ob- 
jected ;  — 

Objection  8.  That  ''  this  doctrine  of  man's  free  agency 
and  ability  is  but  a  new  edition  of  the  exploded  Arminian 
notion  of  the  self-determining  power,  and  conversion  by  moral 
suasion." 

Answer.  We  have  seen  that  the  Bible  teaches  the  free 
agency  and  natural  ability  of  man ;  that  the  primitive  fathers, 
and  Augustine,  and  Luther,  and  Calvin,  and  Edwards,  and 
Bellamy,  and  Witherspoon,  and  Smalley,  and  West,  and 
Strong,  and  Dwight,  all  recognize  the  capacity  and  obligation 
of  man,  as  a  free  agent ;  and  place  his  impotency  exclusively 
in  the  perversity  of  his  will.  And  is  this  Arminianism  and 
the  self-determining  power  ?  What  is  the  self-determining 
powTr  7  It  is  a  theory  devised  to  escape  from  the  certainty 
of  human  action,  as  implied  in  the  government  of  God  accord- 
ing to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  To  accomplish  this,  it 
was  insisted  that  all  voluntary  action  of  mind,  in  order  to  be 
praise  or  blame  worthy,  must  be  uncertain,  and  occasioned  by 
no  influence  wdiatever,  ah  extra ;  but  the  soul,  shut  up  i?i 
vacuo,  must  put  forth  volitions,  without  any  cause,  ground, 
or  reason,  but  its  own  internal  sovereign  good  pleasure  ;  and 
that  even  choice  itself  was  good  for  nothing,  which  was  not 
the  product  of  an  antecedent  choice ;  so  that  every  human 
volition  must  be  impregnated  with  virtue  by  an  antecedent 
choice,  and  all  acts  of  mind  by  one  act  of  choice  before 
the  first.     This  is  the  old  Arminian  notion  of  the  self-deter- 


46  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

mining  power.  And  is  it  like?  Like  what?  Like  the 
capacity  of  acting  in  the  view  of  motives,  in  accordance  with 
the  righteous  requisitions  of  heaven  ? 

Ask  Edwards,  and  he  will  reply, —  that  the  impossibility 
of  choosing  right  would  preclude  obligation  and  guilt ;  and 
that  if  all  wliich  his  antagonist  meant  by  self-determining 
power  was  merely  the  capacity  of  choice  in  accordance  with 
divine  requirement,  there  could  be  no  dispute  on  the  subject. 
He  held  that  it  was  only  a  moral  inability,  only  the  opposition 
of  a  contrary  choice,  wliich  prevented  a  right  choice  in  all 
cases. 

Objection  9.  It  is  objected  that,  ''  this  doctrine  of 
man's  ability  to  obey  the  Gospel,  and  his  dependence  only  as 
a  sinner,  if  it  be  not  Arminianism,  is  tending  fast  that  way, 
and  may  be  expected  ultimately  to  eventuate  in  the  overthrow 
of  evangelical  doctrine  and  revivals,  and  in  cold  Arminian 
formality,  or  a  subtle  and  virulent  heresy." 

Answer.  But  these  tendencies,  hitherto,  have  been  so 
slow  in  coming  into  being,  as  might  well  allay  our  fears  for 
many  generations,  if  not  forever.  From  Augustine  to  Ed- 
wards, and  from  Edwards  to  this  day,  the  ability  of  man,  as 
a  free  agent,  has  been  taught,  and  his  impotency,  as  consist- 
ing in  a  biased  and  perverted  will :  and  from  making  the  dis- 
tinction clear  and  prominent,  Arminianism  has  never  been 
the  result ;  but  has  resulted,  as  history  will  attest,  from  con- 
founding this  distinction,  and  sinking  down  man  to  the  impo- 
tency of  a  natural  impossibihty  of  spiritual  obedience.  There 
are  two  ways  of  producing  Arminianism  ;  one  is  by  teaching 
it,  and  another,  more  effectual,  is  the  incorporating  with  the 
truth  the  revolting  material  of  natural  inability.  The  river 
whose  channel  is  obstructed  will  send  out  its  waters  in  lateral 
channels  of  desolation.      Remove  the  obstructions,  and  the 


DEPENDENCE  AND  EEEE  AGENCY.         47 

vagrant  waters  will  return  gladly  to  their  natural  course. 
The  most  effectual  way  to  promote  Arminianism  is  to 
obstruct  the  channel  of  common  sense  and  of  revelation  by 
the  doctrine  of  natural  impotency  ;  while  well-defined  and 
guarded  expositions  of  natural  ahilitij  as  the  foundation  of 
obligation,  and  of  moral  inahllity  as  consisting  in  obstinate 
aversion  to  evangelical  obedience,  are  the  most  effectual  means 
of  its  expulsion  from  Christendom, 

The  testimony  of  Neander,  and  of  Pusey,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  in  the  University  of  Oxford,  England,  concerning 
the  cause  of  the  great  German  defection,  speaks  volumes 
on  the  subject.  "It  is  a  problem,"  says  Professor  Pusey, 
"of  immense  interest  and  importance  to  solve,  how  Germany, 
from  having  been,  in  appearance  at  least,  sound,  became,  by 
a  rapid  change,  and  to  a  fearful  extent,  an  unbelieving 
church.  I  was  startled,  when  Neander,  on  my  asking  him 
to  what  he  ascribed  the  progress  of  unbelief  in  Germany,  said, 
'The  dead  orthodoxy.'  I  was  much  prejudiced  at  first 
against  the  opinion,  but  came  at  last  to  no  other  result."  * 
Now  the  dead  orthodoxy  of  Germany  included  and  was  per- 
vaded by  the  doctrine  of  man's  natural  inability  to  obey  the 
Gospel. 

It  has  been  supposed  by  our  friends  at  a  distance  that  the 
great  defection  in  New  England  from  orthodoxy  was  occa- 
sioned by  the  new  divinity,  particularly  the  doctrine  of 
natural  ability  and  moral  inability, —  which  was  denominated 
"new  divinity"  fifty  years  ago,  in  opposition  to  what  was 
then  styled  "  old  Calvinism."  But  the  fact  is,  that  in 
Boston  and  Massachusetts,  as  in  Germany,  the  Arminian  and 
Unitarian  defection  was  the  legitimate  and  undeniable  pro- 

*  Biblical  Repository  for  1832,  p.  586. 


48  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

duct  of  "  dead  orthodoxy."  So  far  as  the  Calvinistic  system, 
as  expounded  by  Edwards  and  the  disciples  of  his  school,  pre- 
vailed, revivals  prevailed,  and  heresy  was  kept  back.  To  its 
proud  waves  they  presented  a  barrier  immovable  as  our  iron- 
bound  shores ;  while  Calvinism,  having  degenerated  to  natu- 
ral impotency,  opened  the  breach  through  which  the  flood 
of  the  Ai'minian  and  Unitarian  heresy  came  in.  Over  nearly 
the  whole  territory  where  prejudice  reigned  against  the  doc- 
trines of  Edwards  and  the  revivals  of  his  day  —  though  his 
opponents  were  nominally  Calvinistic  —  has  the  desolation  of 
heresy  rolled.  And,  most  notoriously,  it  was  "dead  ortho- 
doxy" that  opened  the  dikes  and  let  in  this  flood;  and 
equally  notorious  is  the  fact,  that  it  is  Edwardsean  Evangel- 
ism which  is  turning  back  this  flood,  and  filling  the  channels 
from  w^hich  it  is  retreating  with  the  waters  of  life.  The  more 
minutely  the  religious  statistics  of  New  England  are  exam- 
ined, the  more  unquestionable  will  the  historic  verity  of  these 
statements  appear. 

It  is  also  a  fact  which  stands  out  to  observation,  that 
Arminian  proselytism,  and  Unitarian  and  Universahst  heresy, 
and  infidel  fatality,  find  the  easiest  access  to,  and  make  the 
most  havoc  in  communities,  in  proportion  as  the  ultra  Calvin- 
ism of  natural  inabihty  is  more  plainly  and  frequently  incul- 
cated, and  more  unequivocally  understood  by  the  people. 
And  far  the  greater  proportion  of  the  revivals  of  our  land, 
it  is  well  known,  have  come  to  pass  under  the  auspices  of 
Calvinism  as  modified  by  Edwards  and  the  disciples  of  his 
school,  and  under  the  mculcation  of  abiMty  and  obhgation, 
and  urgent  exhortations  to  immediate  repentance  and  sub- 
mission to  God :  wdiile  congregations  and  regions  over  which 
natural  impotency  and  dependence,  and  the  impenitent  use 
of  means,  and  w^aiting  God's  time,  have  disclosed  their  tend- 


DEPENDENCE   AND    FREE   AGENCY.  49 

cncics,  have  remained,  likej  Egypt,  dark,  beside  the  land  of 
Goshen ;  and  like  the  mountains  of  Gilboa,  on  which  there 
was  no  rain,  nor  fields  of  offerings  ;  and  like  the  bones  in  the 
valley  of  vision,  dead,  dry,  very  dry.  Far  be  it  from  me  to 
say  or  insinuate  that  no  ministers  are  blessed  with  revivals 
wdio  do  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  man's  natural  ability  and 
moral  inability.  I  mean,  that  where  the  doctrine  of  abso- 
lute inability  is  made  to  stand  out  in  all  its  relations,  and 
is  unmodified  by  any  counteracting  truths,  its  results,  so 
far  as  my  observation  has  extended,  are,  without  a  single  ex- 
ception, most  deadly  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  and  the  souls  of 
men ;  and  that,  as  a  general  fact,  the  Gospel  as  explained 
and  pressed,  upon  the  principles  of  abihty  and  obhgation,  is 
more  uniformly  and  eminently,  than  in  any  other  mode  of 
presentation,  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God  unto 
salvation. 

But,  while  I  thus  advocate  the  doctrine  of  man's  ability  as 
a  free  agent,  and  his  dependence  on  special  grace  as  a  sinner, 
as  from  the  commencement  of  my  ministry  to  this  day  I  have 
not  ceased  to  do,  I  am  far  from  supposing  that  the  doctrine  is 
incapable  of  perversion,  or  that  there  is  no  danger  that  ardent 
and  inexperienced  minds  may  give  to  ability  and  obligation 
too  much,  and  to  dependence  on  the  special  influence  of  the 
Spirit  too  little,  prominence.  Nor  are  the  fears  and  cautions 
of  holy  men,  who  love  revivals,  and  have  experimental  knowl- 
edge on  the  subject,  to  be  lightly  regarded.  But  the  danger 
of  excess  on  the  side  of  insisting  upon  abihty  and  obligation 
is  not  to  be  averted  by  denying  the  doctrine.  This  would  be 
like  eclipsing  the  sun  to  prevent  the  occasional  over-action  of 
his  rays,  or  to  annihilate  the  attraction  of  gravity  to  avoid  the 
accidental  evils  of  which  it  is  the  occasion.  Nor  is  the  excess 
of  some  on  the  side  of  free  agency  and  ability  to  be  equahzed 

VOL.  III.  5 


50  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

by  pressing  with  equal  frequency  and  exclusiveness  by  others 
the  doctrine  of  dependence.  Both  doctrines  are  true,  and 
exist  in  perfect  harmony ;  and,  by  their  united  action,  bring 
on  the  mind  a  strength  of  obh'gation,  and  weight  of  guilt,  and 
a  power  of  motive,  wholly  unparalleled  by  any  other  mode  of 
exhibiting  the  Gospel  which  I  have  ever  known.  It  has  been 
said  that  they  ought  never  to  be  preached  together  in  the 
same  sermon.  It  would  be  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  they 
ought  never  to  be  separated.  Should  free  agency  and  ability 
be  so  preached  as  to  make  and  justify  the  impression  that 
man  is  so  able  and  so  willing  to  obey  the  Gospel  as  that  the 
special  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  not  necessary  to  make  him 
actually  willing,  it  would  be  a  doctrine  fundamentally  erro- 
neous ;  and  were  dependence  so  preached  as  to  make  and 
justify  the  impression  that  God  requires  of  men  the  perform- 
ance of  natural  impossibilities,  and  that  all  which  a  sinner 
can  do  is  impenitently  to  use  the  means  and  wait  for  sovereign 
grace ;  —  this  would  be  the  subversion  of  accountability,  and 
of  all  the  principles  of  the  moral  government  of  God.  It  is 
when  the  capacity  of  man  for  obedience  is  asserted,  and  his 
own  perversion  of  it  is  charged  upon  him,  and  God  commands 
him  to  repent,  and  Christ,  who  died  for  him,  exhorts,  and  his 
ambassadors  plead,  and  the  Spirit  strives ;  that  the  command- 
ment comes,  and  fear  is  awakened,  and  conscience  armed, 
and  sin  revives,  and  the  sinner  dies.  Experience  evinces 
continually,  in  revivals,  that  there  is  no  pressure  upon  the 
soul  like  that  which  is  produced  by  the  recognition  of  ability 
self-perverted,  and  the  necessity  of  special  divine  influence 
self-created,  by  inflexible  obstinacy  in  sin.  If  there  be  any 
truth  which  ever  brought  this  soul  of  mine  into  the  dust  before 
God,  with  a  conscious  guilt  which  was  insujoportable,  and  an 
anguish  the  recollection  of  which  the  ages  of  eternity  cannot 


DErENDENCE   AND    FREE   AGENCY.  51 

obliterate ;  it  was  the  distinct  perception  of  immortal  powers 
voluntarily  withdrawn  from  the  service  of  God,  and  the  cer- 
tainty of  a  profitless  and  miserable  eternity,  if  in  the  day  of 
his  power  he  did  not  make  me  willing  to  obey  him.  Day 
after  day,  and  month  after  month,  amid  darkness  visible  and 
sickness  of  heart  from  hope  deferred,  this  was  the  iron  that 
entered  my  soul,  and  drew  fast  upon  me  the  bands  of  death, 
—  that  God  had  made  me  capable  of  his  perfect,  blessed, 
immortal  service,  and  I  had  turned  away  from  it  to  beggarly 
elements ;  that  by  tha  blood  of  expiation  he  had  opened  to  me 
a  door  of  return,  while  my  OAvn  obstinacy  and  God's  justice 
threatened  me  with  an  eternit}'-  of  everlasting  uselessness,  and 
guilt,  and  misery.  And  it  was  here,  if  anywhere,  that  God, 
by  his  truth,  broke  my  hard  heart  and  bowed  my  stubborn 
will. 

And  I  must  say,  that  while  such  has  been  my  own  expe- 
rience of  the  two  doctrines  upon  my  own  soul,  such,  also, 
during  my  Avhole  ministry,  has  been  my  observation  of  their 
eifccts  on  the  souls  of  others.  They  have  constituted,  under 
God,  the  power  of  my  ministry,  the  burning  focus  and  the 
breaking  hammer ;  and  so  vital  are  the  two  principles,  and  so 
interwoven  and  diffused  in  all  those  discourses  of  mine  which 
God  has  made  most  effectual  in  the  conviction  and  conversion 
of  sinners,  that  I  could  not  preach  one  of  them  in  a  revival, 
after  these  principles  had  been  obliterated.  No  other  obstruc- 
tion to  the  success  of  the  Gospel  is  so  great  as  the  possession 
of  the  public  mind  by  the  belief  of  the  natural  and  absolute 
inability  of  unconverted  men.  That  belief  has  done  more,  I 
verily  believe,  to  wrap  in  sackcloth  the  Sun  of  Righteousness, 
and  perpetuate  the  shadow  of  death  on  those  who  might  have 
been  rejoicing  in  his  light,  than  all  errors  beside.  I  cannot 
anticipate  a  greater  calamity  to  the  church  than  would  follow 


52  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

its  universal  inculcation  and  adoption.  And  most  blessed 
and  glorious,  I  am  confident,  Tvill  be  the  result,  when  her 
ministry,  everywhere,  shall  rightly  understand  and  teach, 
and  their  hearers  universally  shall  admit,  that  the  full  abihty 
of  every  sinner  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  salvation,  and  the 
voluntary  and  obstinate  perversion  of  this  abihty,  together 
constitute  the  ground  of  the  indispensableness  of  converting 
grace.  So  preached  Apostles  and  Reformers  and  other  suc- 
cessful ambassadors  for  Christ;  and  so  was  their  message 
received  by  the  multitudes  in  whom  it  was  made  the  power 
of  God  unto  salvation.  And  so  will  ministers  universally 
preach,  and  their  message  be  received,  when  all  kindreds, 
and  people,  and  tongues,  shall  be  subdued  to  the  obedience  of 
faith. 


SERMON    ri. 

THE   NATIVE    CHARACTER    OF    MAN. 
*'  Every  one  that  lovctli  is  born  of  God."  —  1  John  4  :  7. 

The  love  here  spoken  of  is  holy  love,  which  assimilates  the 
subject  to  God.  It  is  that  love  which  is  styled  the  fulfillino" 
of  the  law,  and  which  is  the  principle  of  evangelical  obedience. 
It  is  religion ;  for  every  one  that  loveth  knoweth  God.  But 
to  know  God  is  life  eternal  —  is  religion.  This  love  does  not 
belong  to  man  by  nature.  It  is  never  a  quality  of  his  heart  as 
a  consequence  of  his  birth,  but  is  the  result,  in  all  cases,  of  a 
special  divine  interposition.  "  Which  were  born,  not  of  blood, 
nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of 
God." 

It  will  be  the  object  of  this  discourse  to  show  that  man  is 
not  religious  by  nature.  By  religion  I  mean  supreme  love 
to  God.  By  man  I  mean  the  entire  race.  And  by  the 
proposition  that  man  is  not  religious  by  nature,  I  mean  that 
there  is  nothing  in  him  which  is  religion,  and  nothing  of 
which  religion  is  the  natural  effect  or  consequence,  without  a< 
special  divine  interposition.  When  natural  objects  produce 
certain  effects  uniformly,  we  suppose  there  is  in  them  some 
cause  for  such  results,  which  we  call  their  nature; 
there  be  certain  effects  which  they  never  produce,  w 
it  is  not  in  their  nature  to  produce  them. 

When  it  is  affirmed,  therefore,  of  man,  th? 

VOL.  III.  5*  / 


54  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

religious  by  nature,  we  mean  tliat  there  is  nothing  in  his 
constitution  of  mind  or  body  of  which  religion  is  the  result 
without  a  special  divine  interposition,  and  that  the  first 
accountable  character  which  he  sustains  is  not  a  religious 
character.  It  will  not  be  denied,  that  if  religion  exists  at  all 
in  man  it  must  exist  in  his  heart,  and  must  consist  primarily 
in  the  state  of  his  will  and  affections  towards  God, —  must; 
include  a  predominant  benevolence  for  God,  and  complacency 
in  his  character,  and  delight  in  his  law,  and  obedience  to  his 
Gospel,  and  resignation  to  his  will. 

In  view  of  these  explanations,  therefore,  I  observe, 

I.  That  the  consciousxess  of  every  man  in  view  of 

THE  requirements  OF  THE  LAW  AND  THE  GoSPEL,  IS  EVI- 
DENCE TO  HIMSELF  THAT  HE  POSSESSES  NO  RELIGION. 

I  appeal  to  the  experience  of  every  one  in  this  assembly 
that  has  not  been  born  again,  whether  religious  affections 
have  found  a  place  in  your  heart,  from  your  earliest  recollec- 
tion. Do  you  believe  that  you  are  truly  pious  ?  Can  you 
lay  your  hand  upon  your  heart,  and  look  up  to  heaven  and 
say.  Thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee  more  than  all  things 
beside?  Do  you  love  his  word,  his  worship,  his  people? 
Do  you  maintain,  with  pleasure,  secret  prayer?  Are  you 
meek  under  provocati'on,  and  self-denying  in  temptation,  and 
resigned  in  affliction?  This  is  religion.  But  is  this  the 
experience  of  any  one  in  this  assembly  who  has  no  reason  to 
believe  that  he  is  born  of  God  ?  And  if  not,  certainly  you 
are  not  religious  by  nature.  And  if  you  present  this  outline 
of  religious  experience  to  your  neighbor,  you  will  find  that  he 
has  nothing  that  answers  to  it.  And  if  you  extend  the  in- 
quiry through  the  world,  you  will  not  find  one  whose  first 
development  of  character  is  that  of  religion. 

II.  The  uniform  experience  of  awakened  sinners 


THE   NATIVE   CHARACTER   OF   MAN.  55 

CORROBORATES  THE  SAME  DOCTRINE.  From  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost to  the  present  hour,  multitudes  have  experienced  deep 
anxiety  for  their  souls,  but  universally  the  cause  of  it  has  been 
that  they  had  no  religion.  They  have  perceived,  always,  that 
the  law  of  God  required  of  them  a  love  which  they  did  not 
feel,  and  Christian  graces  to  which  they  were  strangers.  And 
nothing  has  been  found  more  to  aggravate  their  distress  than 
the  simple  direction  to  love  supremely  the  Lord  their  God, 
and  Jesus  Christ.  Uniformly  the  reply  has  been,  We  cannot 
love ;  we  cannot  repent ;  v^e  cannot  believe.  I  am  sensible 
that  there  are  many  who  are  not  thus  awakened ;  but  does 
their  stupidity  discredit  the  consciousness  of  those  who  are 
awakened  in  respect  to  their  own  character  1  This  conscious- 
ness, then,  of  all  who  are  awakened,  that  they  have  no 
religion,  is  strong  presumptive  evidence  that  the  same  is  the 
fact  with  respect  to  those  who  are  not  awakened. 

III.    To  THIS   MAY  BE  ADDED    THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THOSE 

WHO  FURNISH  EVIDENCE  OF  PIETY.  Their  Uniform  testi- 
mony is  that  their  religious  experience  is  a  state  of  the  will 
and  affections  wholly  unknown  before. 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  some  persons  profess  religion 
who  disclaim  the  existence  of  any  great  change  in  the  state 
of  their  will  and  affections  towards  God,  and  claim  that  they 
have  always,  from  their  earliest  years,  loved  God.  But  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  religion  which  they  claim  is 
not  such  rehgion  as  has  been  described.  To  this  they  make 
no  pretension,  but  ridicule  it  as  visionary,  enthusiastic  and 
fanatical.  Doubtless  men  may  have  such  religion  as  these 
persons  profess,  without  a  change  of  heart.  But  I  insist  that 
the  outline  of  religious  experience  which  has  been  given  is  the 
religion  of  the  Bible  ;  and  that  all  who  are  conscious  of  pos- 
sessing it  do  testify  that  it  is  a  state  of  the  affections  entirely 


66  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

new ;  and  this  testimony  of  the  pious  strengthens  the  pre- 
sumption that  religion  is  never  the  first  character  of  man,  but 
always  the  result  of  a  divine  interposition. 

ly.  The  history  of  the  world  is  utterly  incon- 
sistent WITH  the  supposition  OF  NATIVE  PIETY  IN  MAN. 

If  a  man  is  religious  by  nature,  we  should  expect  to  wit- 
ness the  efiects  of  early  and  universal  piety  in  the  history  of 
the  world.  A  world  whose  inhabitants  all  begin  their 
accountable  course  religiously,  could  not  surely  furnish  the 
same  materials  for  history  as  a  world  whose  early  character 
is  that  of  alienation  from  God.  But  does  the  history  of  the 
world  confirm  the  supposition  that  man  is  rehgious  by  nature  7 
Of  those  who,  in  adult  age,  afibrd  credible  evidence  of  piety, 
three-fourths  at  least  continue  to  do  so;  and  the  reasons 
would  be  stronger  in  favor  of  perseverance,  if  rehgion  were 
the  first  character  of  all  men.  But  do  three-fourths  of  the 
human  race,  or  one-fourth,  afford  e\ddence  of  piety  from  child- 
hood upward  ?  Has  it  not  been,  till  lately,  a  rare  event  to 
find  it  at  all  among  children  ?  Among  real  Christians  religion 
is  a  predominant  prmciple  of  action.  But  does  the  history 
of  the  world  show  that  religion  has  been  the  predominant 
principle  of  action  in  the  human  race  7  What  is  the  origin 
of  governments,  but  necessity  7  Families  cannot  dwell  in 
safety  in  this  world  without  protection,  and  therefore  associate 
in  tribes  ;  and  tribes,  wearied  with  the  action  and  reaction  of 
\iolence,  coalesce  for  safety,  and  form  the  more  extended 
communities  of  nations.  Until  these  great  associations  were 
formed,  the  world  had  no  rest,  and  the  arts  of  civilized  life 
were  scarcely  known.  But  nations  have  displayed  the  same 
principles  of  ambition  and  violence  towards  each  other  which 
marked  the  conduct  of  indi\aduals,  and  famihes,  and  i;ribes. 
The  history  of  nations  is  the  history  of  crime  and  blood,  and 


THE   NATIVE    CHARACTER   OF   MAN.  5t 

not  of  peace  and  good-will  to  men.  If  men  were  religious 
hy  nature,  we  might  expect  that  the  knowledge  and  worship 
of  the  true  God  would  be  in  every  age  universal.  Instead 
of  this,  two-thirds  of  the  human  family  have  been  idolaters. 
Notwithstanding  the  invisible  things  of  God  are  clearly  seen 
])y  the  things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
head,—  and  notwithstanding  all  that  God  has  done  by  revela- 
tion, and  by  miracle,  and  by  his  Spirit, —  two-thirds  of  the 
human  family  have  changed  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible 
God  into  an  image  made  like  to  corruptible  man,  and  to  four- 
footed  beasts  and  creeping  things.  Why  is  this  ?  The  evi- 
dence of  His  being  is  not  obscure,  and  the  divinity  of  idols  is 
not  supported  by  even  specious  evidence.  The  service  of  God 
is  reasonable,  pure,  and  benign ;  while  that  of  idols  is  obscene, 
expensive,  and  bloody.  Could  a  race,  of  which  every  individ- 
ual commenced  his  accountable  course  under  the  influence 
of  religion,  have  done  thus  ? 
V.  It  is  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  Bible,  that 

MEN   ARE   NOT   RELIGIOUS   BY   NATURE. 

This  is  strongly  implied  in  the  utter  silence  of  the  Scrip- 
tures in  respect  to  the  piety  of  man  by  nature.  If  the  first 
character  which  man  sustains  is  a  rehgious  character,  the 
Scriptures  could  not  have  failed  to  recognize  it.  It  would  be 
a  commanding  fact,  which  would  extend  its  impHcations 
through  every  page,  and  modify  every  doctrine.  Surely  the 
descriptions  of  a  religious,  and  of  an  alienated  world,  could 
not  be  the  same.  But  let  one  examine,  one  by  one,  all  the 
passages  which  speak  of  the  heart  of  man,  and  he  will  find 
there  is  not  one  which  declares,  or  implies,  that  it  is  the  sub- 
ject of  religion  by  nature.  Whence  this  silence  7  It  is  one 
great  object  of  the  Bible  to  make  man  acquainted  with  his 
own  heart ;  and  mucli  is  disclosed  concerning  its  wickedness. 


58  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

Why  is  nothing  said  of  its  excellence,  if  religion  be  one  of  its 
native  attributes  ?  This  silence,  though  only  negative  testi- 
mony, corroborates  greatly  the  preceding  evidence,  that  man 
is  not  religious  by  nature. 

VI.  The  Bible  ascribes  to  the  natural  heart  of 

MAN  A  character  UTTERLY  INCOMPATIBLE  WITH  THE  EX- 
ISTENCE OF  RELIGION.  Before  the  flood,  every  imagination 
of  Qiian's  heart  is  described  as  being  evil  only^  continually  ; 
and  after  that  event,  as  evil  stilly  from  his  youth.  This  last 
declaration  is  made  also  as  a  reason  why  God  in  all  future 
ages  will  no  more  curse  the  ground  for  man's  sake, —  afford- 
ing testimony,  not  only  that  the  heart  of  man  was  evil  then 
from  his  youth,  but  that  it  would  continue  to  be  so  through 
all  ages  future ;  unreclaimed  by  judgments,  however  numer- 
ous or  severe.  Thirteen  hundred  years  later  the  hearts  of 
the  sons  of  men  are  described  as  "full  of  evil."  And 
later  still  as  ''deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperately 
wicked."  The  account  which  is  given  of  the  heart  by  our 
Saviour  is  as  explicit  and  forcible  as  any  of  the  preceding, — 
"  Out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil  thoughts,  murders,  adulteries, 
fornications,  blasphemies." 

Upon  this  testimony  of  the  Bible  I  remark,  that  the 
heart  of  man  is  never  described  as  becoming  thus  wicked  by 
any  change  from  native  goodness  to  evil,  since  the  fall  of 
Adam;  but,  when  described  as  evangelically  good,  it  is 
always  done  in  terms  which  imply  a  change  from  evil  to 
goodness. 

Whenever  men  conduct  wickedly,  they  are  regarded  as 
illustrating  their  own  natural  character, —  as  obeying  the 
dictates  of  then*  own  hearts.  But  when  they  manifest  reli- 
gious affections,  these  are  described  as  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit ; 
and  when  they  are  given  up  to  irreclaimable  wickedness,  they 


THE   NATIVE   CHARACTER   OF  MAN.  69 

are  given  up  to  their  own  hearts'  lust, —  to  their  foolish  and 
darkened  hearts, —  to  vile  affections  through  the  lust  of  their 
own  hearts,  after  their  hard  and  impenitent  hearts,  treasur- 
ing up  wrath.  How,  then,  stands  the  testimony  of  the  Bible 
concerning  the  heart  of  man  ?  It  is  silent  as  to  the  existence 
in  it  of  religion.  That  heart  is  described  in  terms  which  pre- 
clude its  existence.  That  heart  is  never  represented  as 
becoming  bad  by  the  loss  of  religion,  or  as  being  good  except 
as  the  effect  of  a  divine  interposition ;  and  when  abandoned 
to  itself,  it  is  always  represented  as  being  desperately  wicked. 
Will  it  be  alleged  that  this  testimony  is  ancient,  and  that  the 
heart  of  man  may  have  changed  for  the  better  1  To  break 
the  force  of  the  testimony,  it  must  not  only  be  possible  that 
a  change  maij  have  taken  place,  but  it  must  be  proved  that  it 
actually  has  taken  place.  Can  such  proof  be  found  in  the 
Bible?  Is  there  a  passage  which  asserts  or  implies  that  a 
universal  change  has  taken  place  in  the  heart  of  man  since 
the  preceding  descriptions  of  it  w^ere  placed  upon  record  ? 

Will  it  be  alleged  that  Enoch,  and  Noah,  and  Moses,  and 
Abraham,  and  others,  are  spoken  of  as  righteous,  without  any 
mention  that  they  had  "experienced  a  change  of  heart?  If 
it  were  so,  it  would  not  prove  that  no  change  had  been  ex- 
perienced. The  omission,  in  the  record,  to  recognize  the 
change,  does  not  prove  that  it  never  happened.  But  it  is 
implied  of  all  these  that  they  did  experience  a  change  of 
character.  Faith  implies  a  change  of  character,  and  is  the 
gift  of  God.  But  by  faith  Abel  offered  a  more  excellent 
sacrifice  than  .Cain,  and  this  was  a  faith  that  works  by  love. 
By  faith,  Enoch  walked  with  God.  By  fliith,  Abraham 
offered  his  son.  By  faith,  Moses  refused  to  be  called  the 
son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter.  Will  it  be  said  that  the  preced- 
ing proof  is  contained  in  a  few  detached  texts  of  Scripture  ? 


60  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

These  texts  are  the  testimony  of  God.  They  relate  to  the 
subject  in  question,  and  are  direct  and  explicit.  They  are 
not  detached  from  the  context,  and  made  to  speak  a  meaning 
which  they  would  not  be  authorized  to  speak  in  their  connec- 
tion. And  as  to  their  being  detached  in  any  other  sense, 
what  if  they  were  all  contained  on  one  page, —  would  that 
increase  their  perspicuity  7  Or  what  if  they  were  multiplied 
an  hundred-fold, —  would  that  ijicrease  the  evidence  of  divine 
testimony  1  How  near  together  must  the  declarations  of  God 
be  placed,  and  how  often  must  they  be  repeated,  to  be  enti- 
tled to  credit  1  And  what  is  the  character  of  those  to  whom 
the  Lord  speaketh  once,  yea,  twice,  and  they  regard  it  not  ? 

VII.  The   Scriptural  account   of   childhood  and 

YOUTH    implies   THAT   MANKIND    ARE    NOT   RELIGIOUS    BY 

NATURE.  ''  The  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his 
youth."  "Childhood  and  youth  are  vanity."  "Foolish- 
ness is  bound  in  the  heart  of  a  child."  "The  wicked  are 
estranged  from  the  womb." 

Could  all  this  be  said  of  childhood  and  youth,  if  the  first 
accountable  character  they  sustain  were  a  religious  character  7 
Is  every  imagination  of  the  pious,  evil  ?  Is  religion  vanity, 
or  folly,  or  estrangement  from  God?  It  must  be  remem- 
bered also  that  the  preceding  are  not  specific  descriptions  of 
some  children  and  youth,  but  descriptions  of  the  entire  race 
of  man  in  the  early  periods  of  life. 

VIII.  The  GENERIC  descriptions  of  man,  contained 
IN  THE  Bible,  are  such  as  preclude  the  supposition 

THAT  HE  IS  RELIGIOUS  BY  NATURE. 

The  term  man  includes  all  men  of  all  nations.  One  nation 
is  not  man.  All  nations  but  one,  are  not  man.  Every  indi- 
vidual of  the  race  is  included ;  and  whatever  is  declared  of 
the  genus  is  declared  concerning-  every  individual.     Is  the 


THE   NATIVE   CIIARACTEll   OF   MAN.  61 

lion  ferocious  7  It  is  the  character  of  all  his  race.  Is  the 
asp  venomous  ?  It  is  true  of  every  asp.  Is  man  born  unto 
trouble  as  the  sparks  fly  upward  ?  None,  then,  escape  trouble. 
Does  he  die  and  waste  away  7  There  is  no  discharge,  then, 
in  that  war. 

When  it  is  demanded,  then,  what  is  man,  that  he  should  be 
clean,  or  he  that  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  be  right- 
eous, it  is  a  positive  declaration  that  man  is  not  clean,  is 
not  righteous  —  as  a  natural  consequence  of  his  birth.  He 
possesses  strength,  and  intelligence,  and  memory,  and  will, 
and  affections,  and  appetites  and  passions,  as  the  result  of 
the  constitution  with  which  he  is  born.  But  moral  purity  — 
righteousness  —  it  is  expressly  declared,  is  not,  hke  these,  the 
consequence  of  natural  birth. 

The  woi'ld  is  another  generic  term  by  which  the  human 
race  is  characterized ;  and  always  in  a  manner  which  excludes 
the  supposition  of  religion  as  being  the  first  or  natural  charac- 
ter of  man.  We  know  that  we  (Christians)  are  of  God, — 
that  is,  are  born  of  God, —  and  the  whole  world  lieth  in 
wickedness.  "  He  (Christ)  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world 
knew  him  not."  -'0,  righteous  Father,  the  world  hath  not 
kno^vn  thee."  "  Know  ye  not  that  the  friendship  of  the 
world  is  enmity  with  God?  "  ''If  the  w^orld  hate  you,  ye 
know  that  it  hated  me  before  it  hated  you."  ''  I  have  given 
them  thy  word,  and  the  world  hath  hated  them."  "If  ye 
(my  disciples)  were  of  the  world,  the  world  would  love  his 
own ;  but  because  ye  are  not  of  the  world,  but  I  have  chosen 
you  out  of  the  world,  therefore  the  world  hateth  you."  In 
these  passages  the  world  is  contrasted  with  the  pious ;  and 
both  together,  like  the  ancient  terms  Jew  and  Gentile,  include 
all  men.  There  is  no  middle  class,  wliich  belongs  neither  to 
the  pious  nor  to  the  world.     But  the  world  is  described  as 

VOL.    III.  6 


62  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

ignorant  of  God ;  as  alienated  from  God ;  as  opposed  to  Jesus 
Christ,  and  liis  cause  and  people ;  as  lying  in  wickedness ; 
as  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.  Is  this  the  description  of 
a  race  whose  first  accountable  character  is  that  of  loyalty  to 
God  7 

The  term  flesh  is  also  a  generic  term,  descriptive  of  man 
in  his  native  state.  "  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with 
man,  for  that  (or  because)  he  also  is  fleshP  His  being  an 
animal  furnished  no  reason,  sui^ely,  why  the  Spirit  of  God 
should  not  strive  with  him.  It  is  his  moral  nature,  therefore, 
which  is  called  flesh ;  and  which  is  described  in  other  places 
as  alienated  from  God,  and  as  lusting  against  the  Spirit; 
famishing  an  obvious  reason  why  the  Spirit  might  abandon 
man.  In  his  discourse  with  Nicodemus,  our  Saviour  ^:)eaks 
of  the  flesh  as  being  that  moral  nature  of  man  which  is  the 
consequence  of  his  natural  biiih.  "That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
spirit."  Our  Saviour  would  not  surely  undertake  to  convince 
Nicodemus  that  the  animal  body  is  flesh.  Flesh  and  spirit 
are  therefore  moral  qualities  contrasted  :  the  one,  forming  the 
fii'st  character  of  man ;  the  other,  the  result  of  a  special 
interposition  of  the  divine  Spirit.  The  one  disqualifying,  and 
the  other  fitting,  a  man  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The  one, 
intending  that  moral  nature  of  man  which  renders  regenera- 
tion indispensable :  the  other,  that  holy  nature  which  is  pro- 
duced by  the  Spirit  of  God.  when  he  renews  the  heart. 

The  flesh  is  in  other  places  described  as  the  comprehensive 
principle  of  moral  evil  in  man  ;  as  the  Spirit  is  described  as 
being  the  efficient  cause  of  all  good.  The  works  of  the  flesh 
are  adultery,  fornication,  idolatry,  hatred,  seditions,  heresies, 
envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  reveUings,  and  such  like : 
but  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  love,  joy,  peace,  long-sufiering, 


THE   NATIVE   CHARACTER   OP   MAN.  63 

gentleness,  goodness,  faith,  meekness,  and  temperance.  The 
flesh  comprehends  the  depravity  which  remains  in  the  Chris- 
tian after  he  is  renewed.  "I  know  that  in  me,  that  is,  in 
my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing."  All  my  goodness  is 
the  result  of  regeneration ;  all  my  sin,  the  remains  of  my 
corrupt  nature,  called  the  flesh.  '-The  flesh  lusteth  against 
the  spirit,  and  the  spirit  against  the  flesh ;  and  these  are 
contrary  the  one  to  the  other,  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the  things 
that  ye  would."  The  flesh,  then,  being  the  first  character  of 
man,  and  the  comprehensive  principle  of  evil  in  him,  is  so 
described  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  rehgion  as  the  char- 
acteristic of  his  first  moral  nature.  For  the  carnal  or  fleshly 
mind  is  "enmity  against  God."  To  be  carnally  minded  is 
death ;  and  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God ;  and 
they  that  live  after  the  flesh  shall  die. 

IX.   All  those  terms  which  divide  the  race  of  man 

INTO  TWO  GREAT  MORAL  DIVISIONS,  IMPLY  THAT  NOT  A 
religious,  but  a  depraved  character,  is  first  SUS- 
TAINED. Such  are  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  the  holy 
and  the  unholy,  the  godly  and  the  ungodly,  the  just  and  the 
unjust.  That  these  terms  of  contrast  include  all  men  is  cer- 
tain. From  the  nature  of  free  agency,  and  fi:om  the  declara- 
tion of  God,  we  know  that  neutrality  cannot  exist  among 
accountable  beings.  Where  men  are  qualified  to  obey,  and 
love  is  required,  neutrality  would  be  disobedience.  To  regard 
God,  as  compared  with  the  creature,  with  indifference,  would 
be  adding  insult  to  rebellion.  But  such  a  state  of  mind  is 
impossible.  No  man  can  serve  two  masters,  nor  be  indif- 
ferent towards  them.  He  will  love  or  hate,  obey  or  despise. 
All  men,  then,  are  holy  or  unholy,  righteous  or  wicked.  But 
which  is  the  first  character  sustained  by  man?  Not  the 
holy,  but  the  unholy.     There  is  no  intimation  in  the  Bible 


64  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

that  men  become  unholy  by  any  change  from  good  to  bad ; 
but  Christians  are  continually  described  as  becoming  holy  by 
a  change  from  bad  to  good.  They  are  begotten  again.  They 
are  born  of  God.  They  are  created  anew.  They  are  raised 
from  the  dead.  The  old  man  is  put  off,  and  the  new  man  is 
put  on.  By  all  this  variety  of  language  it  is  implied  that 
the  sinful  nature  of  man  is  first,  and  that  his  holy  nature  is 
the  result  of  a  special  divine  interposition. 

X.  The  avowed  object  of  the  death  of  Christ  de- 
cides THAT  MANKIND  ARE  NOT  RELIGIOUS  BY  NATURE.      His 

death  was  rendered  necessary  by  a  character  sustained  by  all 
men.  And  what  was  the  character  sustained,  which  awak- 
ened the  compassion  of  God,  and  called  from  heaven  his 
only-begotten  Son  to  die  for  man  ?  It  was  that  of  alienation 
from  God.  Heirein  is  the  love  of  Christ  commended,  in  that 
while  we  were  yet  enemies  he  died  for  us.  He  suffered,  the 
just  for  the  unjust.  "  He  died  for  all ;"  but  it  was  because 
they  "were  all  dead."  In  accordance  with  these  representa- 
tions, men  are  addressed  by  the  Gospel  as  dead ;  and  are 
commanded  to  arise  from  the  dead, —  as  blind ;  and  are  com- 
manded to  see, —  as  wicked  ;  and  are  commanded  to  forsake 
their  wicked  way,  and  turn  to  God.  They  are  addressed  as 
impenitent ;  and  are  called  upon  to  repent  —  as  in  unbelief ; 
and  are  commanded  to  believe.  Every  condition  of  pardon 
proposed  to  men  in  the  Gospel,  implies  that  they  do  not  by 
nature  possess  it.  The  apostles,  in  theii*  great  commission, 
were  directed  to  addi-ess  every  creature  as  impenitent ;  and 
Paul,  in  particular,  was  sent  to  the  heathen,  to  open  their 
eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the 
power  of  Satan  to  the  living  God. 

When  men  obey  the  Gospel,  they  are  described  as  renewed, 
—  as  reconciled, —  as  sustaining  new  affections.     Old  things 


THE   NATIVE    CHARACTER   OF   MAN.  65 

are  passed  away ;  behold  all  things  are  become  new.  The 
entire  Christian  character  is  described  in  the  Bible  as  the 
work  of  the  Spirit.  The  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace, 
faith,  &c.  But  the  Spirit  operates  only  in  the  application  of 
the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ,  in  carrying  into  effect 
the  objects  of  his  death.  Before  he  renews  the  hearts  of 
the  men  for  whom  Christ  died,  they  are  therefore  enemies, 
unjust,  and  dead  in  sin. 

Those  who  reject  the  Gospel,  and  perish,  are  represented 
as  sustaining  their  own  original  character ;  as  despising  the 
riches  of  the  goodness  of  God,  and,  after  their  hard  and 
impenitent  heart,  treasuring  up  wrath;  as  refusing  wdien 
the  Saviour  called,  and  disregarding  when  he  stretched  out 
his  hand.  In  short,  men  are  described  as  becoming  wicked 
as  a  consequence  of  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  religious  as  the 
consequence,  and  only  as  the  consequence,  of  the  interposition 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

XI.  It  is  DECLARED  IN  DIRECT  TERMS.  EXPRESSLY  AND 
UNEQUIVOCALLY,  THAT  MANKIND  ARE  NOT  RELIGIOUS  IN 
THEIR  FIRST  CHARACTER. 

'^  The  Lord  looked  down  from  heaven  upon  the  children  of 
men,  to  see  if  there  were  any  that  did  understand  and  seek 
God."  To  know  and  to  seek  God,  imphes  religion.  This 
investigation,  therefore,  was  instituted  to  decide  the  question 
whether  there  was  an  individual  of  the  human  race  who  was 
religious  by  nature.  Not  whether  any  had  returned,  of  those 
who  had  gone  astray, —  for  of  such  we  read  in  the  context,  and 
throughout  the  Bible, —  but  to  ascertain  whether  there  were 
any  of  the  race  of  man  who  had  never  turned  away  from 
God,  but  remained,  like  Abdiel,  "  faithful  among  the  faith- 
less." The  result  of  this  omniscient  scrutiny  is,  ''They  are 
all  gone  aside;  they  are  all  together  become  filthy;  there  is 

VOL.    III.  6^ 


66  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

none  that  doeth  good;  no,  not  one."  This  is  the  declaration 
of  God  concerning  the  children  of  men:  the  result  of  an 
omniscient  investigation,  made  expressly  to  decide  whether 
the  effects  of  the  fall  were  universal,  or  whether  any  religious 
affection  remained.  The  apostle  Paul  quotes  this  declaration 
of  the  Most  High  to  prove,  and  he  says  that  it  does  prove, 
"both  Jews  and  Gentiles  "  (terms  which  then  included  all 
men),  "  that  they  are  all  under  sin."  But  to  be  under  sin  is 
to  be  under  its  dominion,  and  under  condemnation;  for  he 
proves  the  fact,  that  all  are  under  sin,  to  cut  off  the  hope  of 
justification  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  and  to  establish  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith.  But  to  be  under  the  dominion 
of  sin,  and  in  an  unjustified  condition,  is  surely  inconsistent 
with  the  existence  of  religion.  To  corroborate  his  argument, 
the  apostle  quotes  the  following  passage  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  he  quotes  it  that  every  mouth  may  be  stopped, 
and  the  whole  world  become  guilty  before  God.  "Their 
throat  is  an  open  sepulchre ;  with  their  tongues  they  have 
used  deceit ;  the  poison  of  asps  is  under  their  lips ;  whose 
mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness ;  their  feet  are  swift  to 
shed  blood ;  destruction  and  misery  are  in  their  ways ;  and 
the  way  of  peace  have  they  not  known ;  there  is  no  fear  of 
God  before  their  eyes."  Now,  abate  from  this  passage  as 
much  as  is  possible  on  the  ground  of  metaphor,  yet,  as  it  is 
quoted  in  a  regular  argument  to  stop  every  mouth,  and  to 
prove  the  whole  world  guilty  before  God,  it  does  most  certainly 
exclude  the  supposition  of  piety  in  those  who  are  thus  charac- 
terized. An  open  sepulchre  is  not  the  place  of  life;  the 
poison  of  asps  is  not  an  emblem  of  health ;  and  cursing  and 
bitterness  are  not  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit;  nor  are  destruction 
and  misery  found  in  the  ways  of  wisdom  ;  nor  can  it  ever  be 
said  of  the  truly  pious  that  they  have  no  fear  of  God  before 


THE   NATIVE    CHARACTER   OF   MAN.  67 

their  eyes.  Language  is  of  no  use,  and  inspiration  affords 
no  evidence  of  truth,  if  these  terms,  appHcd  to  stop  every 
mouth  and  prove  the  whole  world  guilty  before  God,  do  not 
prove  that  man  is  not  religious  by  nature. 

XII.  There  is  also  in  the  Scriptures  much  infer- 
ential EVIDENCE  ON  THIS  SUBJECT.  If  man,  in  his  first 
character,  is  religious,  we  should  expect  that  the  fact  would 
be  implied  in  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  ;  and  if  he  is  not 
religious,  that  such  a  fact  would  also  be  implied.  The 
difference  is  so  great  that  the  same  doctrines  cannot  be  alike 
true  on  either  supposition.  But  to  which  of  the  two  sup- 
positions are  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  accommodated  ?  If 
man  is  not^  religious  by  nature,  we  should  expect  to  find 
the  necessity  of  a  great  moral  change  inculcated  in  the  Bible. 
And  do  we  not  find  it?  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he 
cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  We  should  expect  to  find 
Christians  described  as  those  who  had  experienced  this  great 
change  :  and  thus  they  are  described  as  born  of  God,  created 
anew,  and  passed  from  death  unto  life.  As  there  can  be  no 
medium  between  religion  and  irreligion,  we  should  expect  the 
change  would  be  sudden.  And  do  not  all  the  terms  which 
describe  it  imply  that  it  is  sudden  ?  It  is  a  creation.  Is 
there  a  point  of  time  in  the  process  of  creation  in  which  a 
substance  is  neither  in  being  nor  out  of  being  7  It  is  a  res- 
urrection from  the  dead.  Is  there  a  moment  in  which  the 
body  is  neither  dead  nor  alive  ?  If  all  men  in  the  beginning 
withhold  from  God  the  homage  of  the  heart,  we  should 
expect  they  would  continue  to  do  so,  until  reclaimed  by  a 
divine  interposition.  And  thus  we  read  of  those  who  received 
Christ,  that  they  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of 
the  flesh,  nor  of  man,  hut  of  God. 

If  religion  in  man  is  the  result  of  a  divine  interposition,  we 


68  VIEWS   OF  TnEOLOGY. 

should  expect  to  find  it  described  as  an  act  of  grace  which 
God  might  grant,  or  withhold,  according  to  his  good  pleasure. 
And  do  we  not  read  that  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will 
have  mercy  1  If  men  are  without  religion,  we  should  expect 
that  they  would  be  required  to  give  the  heart  to  God,  and 
repent,  and  beheve  immediately,  and  that  those  who  perished 
would  be  represented  as  self-destroyers.  And  is  it  not  so  ? 
"Repent,  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  "  To-day,  if 
ye  will  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your  hearts."  And  do  not 
all  who  perish  under  the  light  of  the  Gospel  perish  by  neg- 
lecting the  great  salvation?  "  Turn  ye,  for  why  will  ye 
die?"  "I  have  called,  and  ye  have  refused."  ''This  is 
the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and 
men  loved  darkness  rather  than  light." 

If  men  are  not  religious  in  theii'  first  character,  we  should 
expect  to  find  all  their  actions  charged  with  sinful  defect. 
And  in  accordance  with  this  expectation  we  read,  "  The  sac- 
rifice of  the  wicked  is  an  abomination  to  the  Lord."  ''  The 
ploughing  of  the  wicked  is  sin."  "  So  then  they  that  are 
in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God."  And  "  without  faith  it  is 
impossible  to  please  him." 

In  conclusion  of  the  argument,  I  have  only  to  add,  that  if 
the  first  accountable  character  of  man  is  a  religious  charac- 
ter, this  entire  body  of  evidence  must  be  reversed.  All  men 
must  be  conscious  of  supreme  love  to  God  in  early  life ;  and 
conviction  of  sin  and  a  moral  renovation  must  be  confined  to 
those  who  have  lost  their  religion ;  while  the  great  body  of 
Christians  must  be  supposed  to  be  such  without  the  con- 
sciousness of  any  change.  At  the  same  time,  the  history  of 
the  world  must  be  held  to  be  a  history  of  -the  fruits  of 
piety, —  idolatry  itself  being  only  an  aberration  of 'religious 
affection   in   cliildren    emulous   to    please   their    heavenly 


THE  NATIVE   CHARACTER   OF  MAN.  G9 

Father !  It  should,  moreover,  be  found  written  upon  tho 
unerring  page,  "  Every  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  good 
from  his  youth.  The  chikb-cn  of  men  have  not  gone  out  of 
the  way.  There  is  none  who  doth  not  understand  and  seek 
God,  and  do  good ;  no,  not  one.  The  heart  of  the  sons  of 
men  is  full  of  goodness^  out  of  which  proceed  holy  thoughts, 
benevolent  deeds,  chasti-ty,  truth,  and  reverence  for  God. 
What,  therefore,  is  man,  that  he  should  be  ivickcd  ?  or  ho 
that  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  not  be  religious  7 
How  lovely  and  pure  is  man,  who  drinketh  in  righteous- 
ness like  water !  This  is  the  apjtrohation^  that  darkness 
is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  have  loved  light  more  than 
darkness,  because  their  deeds  are  good.  The  whole  world 
lieth  in  righteousness.  He  [Christ]  was  in  the  world,  and 
the  world  knew  him.  0,  righteous  Father,  the  world  hath 
known  thee.  The  friendship  of  the  world  is  friendship 
ivith  God.  If  the  world  hath  loved  you,  ye  know  that  it 
loved  Qne  before  it  loved  you.  Be  ye,  therefore,  conformed 
to  the  world,  and  be  ye  not  transformed  by  any  renewing 
of  your  mind.  My  Spirit  shall  always  strive  with  man, 
because  he  is  spirit.  For  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
spirit.  Marvel  not  that  I  say  unto  you  ye  must  not  be 
born  again.  For  the  works  of  the  flesh  are  love,  joy,  peace, 
faith ;  and  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  love,  joy,  peace, 
faith.  In  me, —  that  is,  in  my  flesh, —  dwclleth  every  good 
thing.  Jesus  Christ  came  to  seek  and  to  save  those  who 
were  not  lost,  and  he  died  not  for  his  enemies  —  7iot  the 
just  for  the  unjust."  The  Gospel  demands  of  men  no  new 
character ;  and  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  imply  the 
early  and  universal  piety  of  the  human  family. 

And  now  who  is  prepared  thus  to  reverse  the  whole  testi- 
mony of  experience,  of  history,  and  of  the  holy  Scriptures  ? 


70  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

In  view  of  sucli  overwhelming  evidence  to  tlie  contrary,  will 
any  man  pretend  to  believe  that  mankind  are  religious  by 
nature  7 

If  you  had  as  much  evidence  that  your  water  was  poi- 
soned as  you  have  that  the  heart  of  man  by  nature  is  not 
holy,  would  you  drink  it  ?  Were  the  proof  as  clear  that  an 
assassin  would  meet  you  on  turning  a  corner,  would  you  go 
thither  ?  Were  it  proved  by  as  various  and  conclusive  evi- 
dence that  the  fire  was  kindling  on  your  dwelling,  would 
you  compose  yourself  to  sleep  7  Will  you,  then,  in  opposi- 
tion to  such  evidence,  still  endeavor  to  persuade  yourself  of 
the  native  goodness  of  the  human  heart  7  If  it  were  merely 
the  body  whose  life  was  threatened  by  the  deception,  I  might 
still  cry  earnestly  to  you  to  beware ;  but  it  is  your  soul^ 
and  your  future  and  eternal  well-being,  which  you  put  in 
jeopardy  by  setting  at  naught  such  evidence.  Without  reli- 
gion you  cannot  be  admitted  to  heaven,  and  would  not  enjoy 
heaven  if  you  were  admitted.  Without  religion  you  can 
neither  keep  the  law  nor  obey  the  Gospel,  and  cannot  escape 
the  condemnation  which  rests  upon  transgression  and  unbe- 
lief Will  you,  then,  shut  your  eyes  against  light,  and  stop 
your  ears  against  admonition?  It  is  but  for  a  moment, 
compared  with  eternity,  that  you  can  thus  deceive  yourself, 
and  cry  Peace.  The  overwhelming  consciousness  must  soon 
press  upon  your  amazed  heart,  that  you  are  without  holiness 
and  cannot  see  the  Lord,  and  that  the  harvest  is  past,  the 
summer  ended,  and  you  not  saved.  There  is  no  hope  in 
your  case  while  you  think  your  heart  is  good,  and  feel  no 
need  of  a  divine  renovation.  They  that  are  whole-  need  not 
the  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick;  and  Jesus  Christ 
came  to  call,  not  the  righteous,  but  sinners,  to  repentance. 
While  the  delusion  prevails  that  you  are  rich,  and  stand  in 


THE  NATIVE   CHARACTER   OP  MAN.  71 

need  of  nothing,  you  will  reject  the  counsel  of  Christ,  to 
apply  to  him  for  eye-salve  that  you  may  see,  and  for  white 
raiment  to  cover  the  shame  of  your  nakedness.  You  -vvill 
do  nothing  to  save  your  own  soul,  and  God  will  do  nothing 
to  save  it,  while,  under  the  concentrated  light  of  evidence, 
you  remain  wilfully  ignorant  of  your  malady,  and  wilfully 
negligent  of  your  only  remedy.  Admit,  then,  the  painful, 
alarming  fact,  that  you  have  no  religion,  and  without  delay 
commence  the  inquiry  what  you  must  do  to  be  saved,  and 
thus  escape  the  coming  wrath,  and  lay  hold  on  eternal  life. 
All  men  who  are  now  in  heaven  were  once,  like  you,  with- 
out God,  and  without  Christ,  and  without  hope ;  and  all  who 
are  now  on  earth,  strangers  and  pilgrims  seeking  a  better 
country,  were  once,  like  you,  without  religion.  But  He 
who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness  has  shined 
in  their  hearts,  and  the  same  blessed  Spirit  is  able  and  will- 
ing to  enlighten  you ;  but  you  must  confess,  and  not  cover 
your  sin ;  you  must  come  to  the  light,  and  not  shun  it ;  you 
must  be  convinced  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  a  judg- 
ment to  come ;  you  must  be  born  again,  or  you  cannot  sec 
the  kingdom  of  God. 


SERMON    III. 

THE  NATIVE   CHARACTER   OP   MAN. 
"  Every  one  that  lovetli  is  born  of  God."  —  1  John  4  :  7. 

The  preceding  discourse  furnishes  a  Scriptural  account  of 
human  depravity.  It  is  comprehended  in  the  fact  that  men 
have  naturally  no  religion.  If  this  has  not  been  proved,  "^e 
must  abandon  our  confidence  in  the  power  of  language  to 
express  ideas,  and  of  evidence  to  prove  matters  of  fact. 

All  Tvhich  is  admirable  in  intellect,  or  monitory  in  con- 
science, or  comprehensive  in  knowledge,  or  refined  in  taste, 
or  delicate  in  sensibility,  or  tender  in  natural  affection,  may 
be  found  in  man,  as  the  result  of  constitution,  or  the  effect 
of  intellectual  and  moral  culture ;  but  religion  is  not  found, 
except  as  a  result  of  the  divine  interposition.  The  temple  is 
beautiful,  but  it  is  a  temple  in  ruin.  This  depravity  of  man, 
implied  in  his  destitution  of  religion,  may  be  described 
briefly  in  the  following  particulars  : 

I.  This  depravity  of  man,  comprehended  in  his  des- 
titution OF  RELIGION,  IS  VOLUNTARY. 

A  depraved  nature  is  by  many  understood  to  mean  a  con- 
stitutional nature,  sinful  prior  to  choice,  and  producing  sin- 
ful choice  by  an  unavoidable  necessity,  as  fountains  of 
water  pour  forth  their  bitter  streams,  or  trees  produce  their 
bitter  fruit. 

The  mistake  lies  in  a  virtual  implication  that  the  nature 


THE   NATIVE    CIIARACTEli    OE    MAN.  73 

of  matter  and  mind  are  the  same  ;  Avhcrcas  they  arc  entirely 
different.  The  nature  of  matter  excludes  powers  of  percep- 
tion, understanding  and  ciioice.  But  the  nature  of  account- 
able mind  includes  them  all. 

Neither  a  holy  or  a  depraved  nature  in  the  strict  sense 
is  possible,  without  acts  of  understanding,  conscience  and 
choice.  To  say  of  an  accountable  creature  that  he  has  a 
depraved  nature,  is  to  say  that,  rendered  capable  by  his 
IMaker  of  obedience,  he  disobeys  from  the  commencement  of 
his  accountable  agency. 

To  us  it  does  not  belong  to  say  when  accountability  and 
actual  sin  commence,  and  to  what  extent  they  exist  in  the 
early  stages  of  life ;  this  is  the  prerogative  of  the  omniscient 
God.  Doubtless  there  is  a  time  when  every  man  does  become 
personally  accountable,  and  the  law  of  God  obligatory.  And 
what  we  have  proved  is,  that,  whenever  the  time  arrives  that 
it  becomes  the  duty  of  man  to  love  God  more  than  the  crea- 
ture, he  does  in  foct  love  the  creature  more  than  God,— 7  does 
freely  and  wickedly  set  his  affections  on  things  below,  and 
refuse  to  set  them  upon  things  above.  For  this  universal 
concurrence  of  men  in  preferring  the  creature  to  the  Creator, 
there  is  doubtless  some  cause  or  reason ;  but  it  cannot  be  a 
cause  of  which  disobedience  is  an  involuntary  and  unavoid- 
able result.  Ability  to  obey  is  indispensable  to  moral  obli- 
gation ;  and  the  moment  any  cause  should  render  love  to 
God  impossible,  that  moment  the  obligation  to  love  would 
cease,  and  man  Avould  no  more  have  a  depraved  nature  than 
any  other  animal.  A  depraved  nature  in  the  strict  sense 
can  no  more  exist  without  voluntary  agency  and  accounta- 
bility, than  a  material  nature  could  exist  without  solidity 
and  extension. 

Whatever  effect,  tjiereforc,  the  fall  of  man  may  have  had 

VOL.  III.  7 


74  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

on  his  race,  it  lias  not  had  the  effect  to  render  it  impossible 
for  man  to  love  God.  And  whatever  may  be  the  early  con- 
stitution of  man,  there  is  nothing  in  it  and  nothing  with- 
held from  it,  which  renders  disobedience  unavoidable  and 
obedience  impossible. 

The  fii'st  actual  sin  in  every  man  might  have  been  and 
ought  to  have  been  avoided,  as  really  as  any  subsequent  sin. 
At  the  time,  whenever  it  is,  when  it  first  becomes  the  duty  of 
a  man  to  be  religious  and  he  refuses ;  it  is  in  the  possession 
of  such  faculties  and  such  knowledge  as  render  religion  a  rea- 
sonable service,  and  him  inexcusable  and  justly  punishable. 
The  supreme  love  of  the  world  is  a  matter  of  choice,  formed 
under  such  circumstances  as  that  the  man  might  have  chosen 
otherwise,  and  ought  to  have  chosen  otherwise,  and  is  there- 
fore exposed  to  punishment  for  his  voluntary  and  inexcusa- 
ble disobedience.  If,  therefore,  man  has  a  depraved  nature, 
in  the  strict'  sense,  it  is  a  voluntary  and  accountable  nature, 
which  is  depraved,  as  exercised  in  disobedience  to  the  law^  of 
God.* 

This  is  in  accordance  with  the  Bible.  '•  They  are  all  gone 
aside."  "  They  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way."  Each  man 
has  been  voluntary  and  active  in  his  transgressions.  "  There 
is  none  that  doeth  good;  no,  not  one."  '-Every  imagina- 
tion of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  is  only  evil  continually." 
"And  even  as  they  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their 
knowledge,  God  gave  them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind." 
"  The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God." 

*  I  do  not  deny  the  existence  of  a  nature  so  afifected  by  the  fall,  even 
before  action,  that  it  uniformly  leads  to  sin,  and  is  therefore  in  a  proper, 
though  loose  and  popular  sense,  called  depraved  and  sinful, —  that  is,  lead- 
ing to  sin.    This  point  is  fully  explained  in  the  trial  that  follows. 


THE   NATIVE   CHARACTER   OF  MAN.  ^5 

II.  The  DEPRAVITY  OF  MAN,  IMPLIED  IN  HIS  DESTITU- 
TION OF  RELIGION,  IS  POSITIVE  DEPRAVITY. 

Multitudes  are  willing  to  admit  the  fact  that  they  have  no 
religion,  who  are  by  no  means  convinced  that  they  are  in  a 
state  of  positive  opposition  to  God.  They  are  not  consci  'is 
of  it.  They  have  a  reverence  for  God,  and  for  his  merci<5£ 
some  gratitude ;  and  desire,  they  think,  to  be  religious,  and 
do  many  things  with  the  hope  of  becoming  such. 

But  the  transgression  of  the  law  is  voluntary  and  positive 
transgression.  Not  to  love  when  God  commands  it,  is  diso- 
bedience, and  not  to  repent  and  believe  when  these  duties  are 
commanded,  is  rebellion  against  God. 

But,  can  a  subject  disobey  the  fundamental  laws  of  the 
government  under  which  he  lives,  and  not  be  opposed  to  the 
government,  and  positively  wicked  ?  And  can  a  man  disobey 
in  his  heart  the  law  of  God  and  His  Gospel,  and  not  be  posi- 
tively opposed  to  his  Maker  and  Redeemer?  The  divine 
requirement  is,  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God;"  and 
the  man  who  has  no  religion  refuses.  The  prohibition  is, 
"Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me;  "  but  the  man 
without  religion,  in  defiance  of  this  prohibition,  does  love  the 
creature  more  than  God.  Is  not  this  positive  disobedience  ? 
Were  a  course  of  action  persisted  in  which  God  forbids,  that 
would  be  counted  positive  disobedience.  But  the  obedience 
of  the  heart  is  of  all  others  the  most  appreciated,  and  the  dis- 
obedience of  the  heart  of  all  others  regarded  as  most  evil. 
Some  have  admitted  that  they  do  not  love  God  supremely, 
but  have  insisted  that  neither  are  they  opposed  to  God.  But 
this  neutral  state,  if  it  were  possible,  would  be  adding  insult 
to  disobedience ;  for  the  command  is,  Thou  shalt  not  be  indif- 
ferent—  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart."     Now,  what  greater  insult  can  be  offered  to  the  glo- 


76  VIEWS    OF  THEOLOGY. 

rious  God  than  to  refuse  him  our  preference,  and  hang  in 
equilibrium  between  the  attractions  of  his  infinite  glory  and 
the  influence  of  a  perishing  >Yorld?  But  neutrality  between 
such  objects  as  God  and  the  world  is  impossible.  It  is  the 
nature  of  mind  to  choose,  if  not  prevented  by  force;  as  much 
as  it  is  of  matter  to  be  quiescent,  if  nx)t  moved  by  external 
powers.  To  prefer  the  world,  or  God,  is  the  unavoidable 
result  of  free  agency.  Not  to  choose  at  all,  is  the  attribute 
of  a  stock  or  a  stone,  but  not  of  a  rational,  accountable  being. 
Nor  is  there  any  practical  indication  of  neutrality.  For 
"whatever  reverence  a  man  may  feel  for  God,  and  whatever 
external  respect  he  may  pay  to  him,  his  own  consciousness 
will  decide,  and  his  course  of  conduct  will  confirm  the  deci- 
sion, that  his  affections  are  set  on  things  below,  and  his 
sources  of  enjoyment  are  found,  not  in  God,  but  in  the  things 
of  time.  Here,  then,  the  great  law  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
violated  by  all  who  are  without  religion.  But  can  the  funda- 
mental laws  of  a  government  be  violated,  without  opposition 
to  that  government? 

This  view  which  we  have  given  of  the  mind,  as  excluding 
neutrality,  is  confirmed  by  the  Bible.  ''  No  man  can  serve 
two  masters."  "  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me." 
"  The  friendship  of  the  world  is  enmity  wath  God."  Hence, 
according  to  the  Bible,  all  men  are  positively  holy  or  unholy, 
just  or  unjust,  righteous  or  wicked,  godly  or  ungodly,  peni- 
tent or  impenitent,  believers  or  unbelievers,  in  a  state  of  par- 
don or  of  condemnation.  Therefore  the  depravity  of  the  man 
who  is  destitute  of  religion  is  positive  depravity. 

III.  The  depravity  of  man,  which  is  iaiplied  in  his 
DESTITUTION  OF  RELIGION,  IS  GREAT.  Many  suppose  that, 
although  they  are  not  religious,  they  are  not  great  sinners. 
Provided  they  are  amiable  and  conscientious  in  their  moral 


THE   NATIVE    CHARACTER   OF   MAN.  77 

deportment,  and  useful  in  their  lives,  they  cannot  conceive 
tliat  Cod  should  have  much  reason  to  be  displeased  with 
them.  If  they  had  been  guilty  of  great  actual  crimes,  they 
would  be  ready  to  admit  that  they  were  great  sinners.  But 
so  long  as  the  chief  that  can  be  said  against  them  is  that  they 
are  not  Christians  ;  tliis^  if  it  be  a  crime  at  all,  is  so  common, 
and  results  (as  they  think)  so  much  from  unavoidable  neces- 
sity, as  almost  to  take  away  guilt,  and  leave  a  fair  balance  of 
good  deeds  and  virtues  to  recommend  them  to  God. 

Far  different  from  this  is  Heaven's  estimation  of  the  guilt 
of  being  without  religion.  According  to  the  Bible,  whenever 
it  Incomes  the  duty  of  man  to  love  God,  it  is  a  duty  of  the 
highest  obligation,  the  violation  of  which  constitutes  crimi- 
nality of  the  highest  order.  The  Being  who  demands  love  is 
worthy  ;  the  beings  of  whom  he  demands  it  are  able  to  love  ; 
and  the  affections  of  his  creatures  belonir  to  Him.  He  claims 
them  as  his  right,  and  declares  that  he  is  robbed  when  they 
are  withheld.  The  highest  good  of  his  subjects,  for  time  and 
eternity,  is  found  in  giving  their  hearts  to  Himself  ;  and  ruin 
is  the  consequence  of  refusal.  The  obligation  to  love  accord- 
ing- to  the  law  is,  therefore,  superlatively  great.  It  is  also  con- 
stant ;  so  that  the  sinfulness  of  man  is  great  in  its  nature  and 
great  in  its  amount,  for  it  is  the  violation,  constantly,  of  the 
highest  possible  obligation.  And,  when  this  is  done  hy  those 
who  are  favored  with  the  Gospel,  their  sin  is  immensely 
aggravated  by  the  consideration  of  all  that  God  has  done  to 
save  thorn  from  death.  They  have  perverted  the  means  of 
grace,  the  mercies  of  his  Providence,  and  the  judgments  of 
his  rod ;  they  have  despised  the  riches  of  his  goodness,  and 
the  fierceness  of  his  wrath  ;  they  have  trodden  under  foot  the 
blood  of  his  Son,  and  done  despite  to  the  Spirit  of  his  grace. 
And  is  all  this  criminality  of  a  low  degree  and  small  amount, 

VOL.   III.  7=^ 


78  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

and  so  neutralized  by  human  inability  as  to  be  more  than  bal- 
anced by  amiable  dispositions  and  good  actions  ?  As  God 
views  the  subject,  those  who  do  not  love  him  are  sinful  to  an 
astonishing  degree.  '-Hear,  0  heavens,  and  give  ear,  0 
earth !  for  the  Lord  hath  spoken, —  I  have  nourished  and 
brought  up  children,  and  they  have  rebelled  against  me  !  " 

IV.  The  depravity  of  man,  implied  in  his  destitu- 
tion OF  PtELiai(?N,  13  ENTIRE.  Most  mcu  wlio  admit  that 
they  have  no  religion,  resist  the  conclusion  that  they  are 
therefore  entirely  depraved.  But,  to  decide  the  point,  wo 
have  only  to  ascertain  in  what  purity  of  heart,  or  holiness, 
consists,  and  whether  a  man  who  has  no  religion  possesses  it. 
Purity  of  heart,  or  holiness,  consists  in  confonnity  of  heart 
to  the  law  of  God^  and  includes,  of  course,  supreme  love 
to  God.  He,  therefore,  who  has  not  supreme  love  to  God, 
possesses  no  such  affections  of  heart  towards  God  as  the  law 
requires  ;  and,  so  far  as  his  heart  is  concerned,  his  depravity 
is  entire.  And  as  to  actions,  however  correct  in  form  they 
may  be,  they  cannot,  without  holiness  of  heart,  be  regarded 
as  obedience.  The  entireness  of  human  depravity,  therefore, 
consists  in  the  constant  voluntary  refusal  of  man  to  love  the 
Lord  his  God  with  supreme  complacency  and  good-will.  It 
is  in  him  all  evil  and  no  good. 

V.  The  view  w^e  have  taken  of  the  character  of 

MAN,  AS  destitute  OF  RELIGION,  ILLUSTRATES  BOTH  THE 
NATURE  AND  THE  NECESSITY  OF  REGENERATION.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  Bible  is  clear  and  forcible  on  this  subject ;  but 
it  is  claimed  by  many,  that,  as  there  is  no  such  moral  defect 
in  man  as  lays  a  foundation  for  the  necessity  of  a  universal 
moral  change,  those  passages  which  might  seem  to  teach  it 
must  be  restricted,  and  understood  to  teach  only  the  necessity 
of  conversion  from  Paganism  or  Judaism  to  Christianity,  or  a 


THE   NATIVE    CHARACTER   OF   MAN.  79 

reformation  of  life.  But  tlic  course  of  evidence  in  these  dis- 
courses has  disclosed  a  universal  and  appalling  moral  defect 
ill  man,  Avhich  renders  just  such  a  change  necessary  as  the 
language  of  the  Bible  indicates,  according  to  its  most  direct 
and  obvious  import.  To  be  ^YItllout  religion  is  to  be  dead  in 
sin ;  and  to  be  so  rene^Yed  by  the  Spirit  as  to  love  God 
supremely,  is  to  be  raised  from  the  dead^  and  horn  of 
God.  This  is  the  change  without  "which  ifo  man  can  sec 
the  klnirdom  of  God. 

This  change,  so  indispensable,  must  also  be  a  perceptible 
change.  The  attention  to  the  means  of  grace,  and  growing 
seriousness  and  solicitude  which  precede  it,  are  progressive, 
as  is  the  subsequent  increase  of  holiness  and  evidence  of  the 
chaniic.  But  the  change  itself  from  selfishness  to  holiness 
—  from  supreme  love  of  the  world  to  supreme  love  of  God  — 
is  not  a  progressive,  but  an  instantaneous  change.  This 
accords  with  the  representations  of  the  Bible.  It  is  a  new 
creation,  a  resurrection  from  the  dead,  &c.  I  do  not  say  that 
every  Ciu'istian  perceives,  at  the  time,  the  moment  of  transi- 
tion ;  or  that,  perceiving  that  a  change  of  some  kind  has 
taken  place,  he  perceives  at  once  the  evidence  that  it  is  a 
saving  change.  Not  unfrequently  days  and  weeks  may  pass 
away  before  he  will  dare  to  hope ;  and  sometimes  the  truly 
pious,  from  a  misapprehension  of  their  evidence,  may  for 
years  be  afflicted  with  doubts  and  fears  concerning  their  state. 
But  that  the  .change  is  real,  and  great,  and  instantaneous, 
when  a  sinner,  who  has  loved  the  world  supremely,  first  sets 
his  afTcctions  on  things  abo\'e,  is  self-evident.  It  would  bo 
ridiculous,  in  the  relations  of  life,  to  talk  of  unperceived  affec- 
tion  for  a  father  or  mother,  husband  or  wife ;  and  equally 
absurd  is  the  supposition  of  loving  God  more  than  the  world, 
without  tlic  occurrence  of  any  pcrceptilile  change. 


80  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

There  is,  I  am  aware,  a  general  feeling  that  men  are  not 
quite  prepared  to  die  without  becoming  better.  But  this 
emendation,  it  is  thought  by  many,  is  to  be  attained  gradu- 
ally, by  moral  culture,  and  imperceptibly,  as  the  grass  grows 
by  rain  and  sunshine.  Any  great  solicitude,  or  deep  convic- 
tion of  sin,  or  sudden  peace  and  joy,  it  is  supposed,  are  not 
to  be  expected,  but  deprecated  as  delusion.  And  some  pro- 
fessed Christians,  and  even  ministers,  warn  their  friends  not 
to  be  alarmed,  and  not  to  expect  any  sudden  and  happv 
change  in  their  views  and  affections.  But  if  there  be  with 
every  man  a  time  when  he  is  not  religious,  there  must  be  a 
time  when  he  becomes  religious.  Even  were  religion  the 
result  of  natural  principles  duly  cultivated,  there  must  be  a 
time  when  cultivation  has  produced  its  results.'  If  it  were 
produced  by  the  cultivation  of  some  low  degrees  of  goodness 
in  man,  still  there  must  be  a  time  when  it  reaches  to  the 
degree  of  goodness  which  constitutes  religion.  Or  if,  as  the 
Scriptures  teach,  there  is  no  religion  in  the  heart  of  man  by 
nature,  then  there  must  be  a  moment  of  time  when  its  exist- 
ence in  the  heart  begins.  For  that  which  once  had  no  exist- 
ence, and  comes  into  being,  must  have  a  beginning.  There 
is  no  medium  between  existence  and  non-existence,  in  matter, 
mind  or  morals;  no  moment  in  which  a  thing  is  neither 
created  nor  uncreated,  neither  in  existence  nor  out  of  exist- 
ence. 

It  is  absurd  to  speak  of  love  as  in  a  process  of  gradual  form- 
ation :  for  what  is  half-formed  love,  repentance,  faith,  or  any 
other  trait  of  Christian  character  ?  How  long  must  culture 
operate,  to  produce  the  simple  and  indivisible  emotion  of  love 
to  God  ?  And  if  the  obedience  of  love  must  be  gradual,  and 
cannot  be  instantaneous,  how  is  it  that  the  requirements  of 
Heaven  should  so  disregard  this  constitution  of  mind,  as  to 


TJTR   NATIVE    CHARACTER    OF    MAN.  81 

command  man  immediately  to  love  and  repent,  and  warn  him 
of  growing  hardness  of  heart  as  the  consequence  of  delay  7 
As  all  men,  then,  arc  destitute  of  religion  by  nature,  its  com-* 
mencemcnt  in  the  soul  is  at  all  times  sudden.  There  is  a 
moment  when  he  who  loved  the  world  more  than  God  begins 
to  love  God  more  than  the  world.  He  may  not  in  a  moment 
see  it,  but  God  sees  it. 

You  have  noAV  before  you  the  evidence  that  men  are  not 
religious  by  nature ;  and  that  this  destitution  implies  the 
universal  and  entire  depravity  of  man,  and  the  necessity  of  a 
great  and  sudden  change  in  the  affections,  by  the  special  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is  not  a  matter  of  abstract 
speculation,  of  no  practical  utility.  Our  being  and  accounta- 
bility are  eternal ;  and  the  law  of  God,  which  is  the  rule  of 
obligation,  is  eternal.  Heaven  is  a  religious  world,  and  the 
present  is  our  state,  and  our  only  state,  of  probation  and 
preparation  for  heaven.  Here,  in  this  morning  of  our  being, 
the  elements  are  formed  of  an  immutable  character  in  the 
eternal  state ;  and  if  that  which  is  first  formed  is  one  that 
unfits  us  for  heaven,  and  fits  us  for  destruction,  can  we  too 
soon  or  too  clearly  perceive  it,  or  too  deeply  feel  it,  or  too  ear- 
nestly strive  to  be  conformed  in  our  affections  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  Gospel,  to.  the  conditions  of  pardon,  and  to  the 
exigencies  of  the  heavenly  state  ?  What,  then,  is  the  im- 
provement which  you  will  make  of  these  discourses,  whoso 
hearts  tell  you  that  you  have  no  religion  1  Will  you  say  that 
these  are  hcu^cl  sayhigs,  and  that  you  do  not  like  such  doc- 
trine? But  is  it  therefore  untrue,  because  it  is  painful? 
And  will  you,  dare  you,  in  the  presence  of  such  evidence, 
reject  it,  in  favor  of  the  dictates  of  mere  inclination  ?  Will 
you  apply  for  comfort  to  such  as  endeavor  to  explain  away 
'his  evidence,  and  speak  to  you  smooth  things,  and  prophesy 


82  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

deceits  ?  Beware !  others  before  you  have  done  this,  and 
"  God  sent  them  strong  delusions,  that  they  might  believe  a 
lie,  because  they  had  no  pleasure  in  the  truth,  but  had 
pleasure  in  unrighteousness."  You  may  persuade  yourself, 
or  be  persuaded,  that  a  change  of  heart  is  not  necessary  to 
prepare  you  for  death  and  heaven ;  and  yet, 

0 

*'  This  fearfal  truth  will  still  remain. 
The  sinner  must  be  born  again. 
Or  drink  the  wrath  of  God." 

Do  you  then,  at  length,  inquire  what  you  must  do  to  be 
saved?  The  answer  is  plain, —  Repent,  and  you  shall  be 
forgiven ;  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  you  shall  be 
saved.  Neglect,  then,  the  subject  no  longer.  Resolve  that 
from  this  time  you  will  make  the  salvation  of  your  soul  your 
first  and  great  concern.  Break  oflf  your  alliance  with  vain 
persons  and  diverting  amusements;  read  your  Bible  daily 
and  earnestly,  alone  ;  and  lift  up  your  cry  to  God,  in  earnest 
supplication  for  mercy.  Plead  guilty,  and  cry  for  pardon 
through  a  Redeemer's  blood ! 


DK.  BEECIIER'S   TRIAL  FOR  HERESY: 

BEFORE    THE    TRESBYTERY    OF    CINCINNATI,     JUNE,    1835. 


INTRODUCTORY   NOTE. 


The  statement  of  my  trial  for  heresy,  at  the  West,  in  1835,  "which  fol- 
lows, is  substantially  as  reported  for  the  JVew  York  Observer,  at  the  time, 
from  the  sittings  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati ;  with  the  incorporation  of 
my  defence,  in  the  maturcr  form  which  it  took  in  my  "  Views  of  Theology,'* 
subsequently  published,  at  the  request  of  the  Synod. 

L.  B. 


The  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  to  which  Dr.  Beecher 
belonged,  held  an  adjourned  meeting  in  that  city,  on  Tuesday, 
the  9th  of  June,  1835.  The  Court  consisted  of  the  following 
members,  namely : 

Ministers. — J.  L.  Wilson,  D.D.,  Lyman  Beecher,  D.D.,* 
Andrew  S.  Morison,  Daniel  Hayden,  Francis  Monfort, 
Thomas  J.  Biggs, t  Ludwell  Gr.  Gaines,  Sayres  Gasley,  Ben- 
jamin Graves  (clerk),  Artcmas  Bullard,  John  Burt,  F.  Y. 
Vail,  Thomas  Braincrd,  A.  T.  Rankin,  Calvin  E.  Stowe| 
(moderator),  Augustus  Pomroy,  George  Beecher,  Adrien 
Aton,  E.  Slack. 

*  Professor  of  Theology,  ^ 

t  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  s  in  Lane  Seminary. 

X  Professor  of  Languages,  \ 


84  VIEWS    OF  THEOLOGY. 

Ruling  Elders.  —  William  Skillinger,  J.  G.  Burnet, 
Adam  S.  Walker.  Simon  Hageman,  Peter  H.  Kemper, 
Andi'ew  Harvey,  William  Cumljack,  Robert  Porter,  John 
Archard,  Henry  Hageman,  A.  B.  Andrews,  Israel  Brown, 
Bryce  R.  Blair,  Wm.  Carey,  J.  C.  Tunis,  J.  Lyon,  J.  D. 
Low,  T.  :Mitcliell,  W^  Owen,  A.  P.  Bradley,  S.  Woodbury. 

The  Presbytery  was  constituted  with  prayer  ;  when  a  ser- 
mon was  dehvered  by  the  Rev.  Cahin  E.  Stowe.  from  Phil.  3  : 
16, — ''Whereto  we  have  already  attained,  let  us  walk  by 
the  same  rule,  let  us  mind  the  same  thing." 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Wilson  had,  at  a  previous  meeting  of  Pres- 
bytery, brought  forward  certain  charges  against  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Beecher,  and  the  present  meeting  had  been  appointed  to  con- 
sider and  try  the  accusations ;  citations  had  been  issued,  and 
the  requisite  steps  taken  to  prepare  the  case  for  trial. 

The  charges  were  then  read,  as  follows : 

CHARGES    OF   WILSON    V.   BEECHER. 

JS^vember  11,  1834. 
To  the  Moderator  a?id  Members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnaii  : 

Dear  Brethren  :  It  is  known  to  the  Trustees  of  Lane  Seminary,  and 
to  some  of  the  members  of  Presbytery,  that,  after  the  appointment  of  the 
Rev.  Lyman  Beecher,  D.D.,  to  the  Professorship  which  he  now  holds,  in 
thgrt  Institution,  I  more  than  once  expressed  an  opinion  that  he  would  not 
accept  of  the  appointment,  because,  as  I  thought,  he  could  not,  consistently 
with  his  views  in  theology,  adopt  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church. 

My  opinion  of  Dr.  Beecher's  theology  was  then  founded  on  my  recollec- 
tion of  a  conversation  held  with  him  iu  1817,  and  his  sermon  published  in 
1827,  entitled  "The  Native  Character  of  Man."  When  I  heard  that  Dr. 
Beecher  had  entered  the  Presbyterian  Church,  v^ithont  adopti7ig  her  stand- 
ards, I  was  surprised,  grieved  and  alarmed.  When  he  was  received  by  the 
Presbytery  of  Cincinnati  from  the  3d  Presbytery  of  New  York,  I  was  in  the 
moderator's  chau*,  and  was  denied  the  privilege  of  protesting  against  his 
admission,  because,  it  was  said,  I  had  no  right  to  protest  in  a  case  in 
which  I  had  no  right  to  vote.    Afterwards  it  was  seen,  by  publications  in 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  85 

different  periodicals,  that  the  soundness  of  Dr.  Bcccher's  theology  -was 
called  in  question,  and  this  Presbytery  was  called  upon  to  take  up  charges 
against  him  on  the  ground  of  general  rumor.  But  the  common  fame  was 
denied  to  exist,  and  the  call  was  unheeded.  Subsequently  the  sermon  of 
Dr.  Bcecher  on  "  Dependence  and  Free  Agency  "  was  circulated,  and  higlily 
commended.  This  Presbytery  was  then  called  upon  to  appoint  a  committee 
to  examine  some  of  the  Doctor's  sermons,  and  report  whether  they  con- 
tained doctrines  at  variance  with  the  standards  of  our  Church.  This  call 
was  disregarded  also.  Complaint  was  made  to  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati, 
and  they  said  the  Presbytery  could  be  compelled  to  take  up  charges 
only  by  a  responsible  prosecutor.  Being  more  and  more  grieved  and 
alarmed,  I  carried  the  matter  up  by  appeal  to  the  last  General  Assembly. 
This  appeal  was  cast  out  by  the  judicial  committee,  because,  it  was  said, 
that  I  was  not  one  of  the  original  parties.  Had  I  called  my  appeal  a  com- 
plaint, it  would  have  been  ti'ied. 

Two  facts  have  made  this  subject  recently  flagrant : 

1.  The  public  commendation  of  Dr.  Beecher's  theology  by  Perfection- 
ists. 

2.  Some  of  the  Perfectionists  have  been  inmates  of  Lane  Seminary. 

In  view  of  these  things,  and  believing  that  Dr.  Beecher  has  contributed 
greatly  to  the  propagation  of  dangerous  doctrines,  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  bring 
charges  against  him  before  this  Presbytery. 

1.  I  charge  Dr.  Beecher  with  propagating  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Word 
of  God,  and  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  on  the  subject  of 
the  depraved  nature  of  man. 

SrECiFiCATiONs.  —  The  Scriptures  and  our  standards  teach,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  a  depraved  nature  ; 

•  1.  That  a  corrupted  nature  is  conveyed  to  all  the  posterity  of  Adam, 
descending  from  him  by  ordinary  generation. 

2.  That  from  original  corruption  all  actual  transgressions  proceed. 

3.  That  all  the  natural  descendants  of  Adam  are  conceived  and  born  in 
sin, 

4.  That  original  sin  binds  the  descendants  of  Adam  over  to  the  wratli  of 
God. 

6.  That  the  fall  of  Adam  brought  upon  mankind  the  loss  of  communion 
with  God,  so  as  we  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  and  bound  slaves  to 
Satan.  Conf.  F.,  ch.  vi.,  sees.  3,  4,  6.  Larg.  Cat.,  Ans.  to  Q.  26,  27.  Vide 
Scrip,  proofs,  and  Short.  Cat.,  A.  to  Q.  18. 

In  opposition  to  this,  Dr.  Beecher  teaches  ; 
VOL.  ill.  8 


86  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

1.  That  the  depravity  of  man  is  voluntary. 

2.  That  neither  a  depraved  or  holy  nature  are  possible,  without  under- 
standing, conscience  and  choice. 

3.  That  a  depraved  nature  cannot  exist  without  a  voluntary  agency. 

4.  That,  whatever  may  be  the  early  constitution  of  man,  there  is  nothing 
in  it,  and  nothing  withheld  from  it,  which  renders  disobedience  unavoid- 
able. 

5.  That  the  first  sin  in  every  man  is  free,  and  might  have  been  and 
ought  to  have  been  avoided. 

6.  That  if  man  is  depraved  by  nature,  it  is  a  voluntary  nature  that  is 
depraved. 

7.  That  this  is  according  to  the  Bible.  "  They  go  astray  as  soon  as  they 
be  born,"  —  that  is,  in  early  life  ;  how  early,  so  as  to  deserve  punishment 
for  actual  sin,  God  only  knows. — Vide  Sermon  on  Native  Character  of 
man,  pp.  72,  73,  74. 

n.  I  charge  Dr.  Beecher  with  propagating  doctrines  contrary  to  the 
Word  of  God,  and  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  on  the  sub- 
jects of  Total  Depravity  and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  effectual  call- 
ing. 

Specificatioxs.  —  The  Scriptures  and  our  standards  teach,  on  the  subject 
of  total  depravity  ; 

1.  That,  by  the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  all  their  natural  descendants  are 
dead  in  sin,  and  wholly  defiled  in  all  the  faculties  of  soul  and  body. 

2.  That,  by  this  original  corruption,  they  are  utterly  disabled,  and  made 
opposite  to  all  good. 

3.  That  a  natural  man,  being  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own 
strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  prepare  himself  thereto. 

4.  That  no  man  is  able,  either  of  himself  or  by  any  grace  received  in  this 
life,  perfectly  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God.  —  Conf.,  ch.  vi.,  sees.  2, 4. 
Ch.  IX.,  sec.  3.  Larg.  Cat.,  A.  to  Q.  25,  149,  190.  Short.  Cat.,  A.  to  Q. 
101,  103,  and  Scripture  proofe. 

In  opposition  to  this.  Dr.  Beecher  teaches  ; 

1.  That  man  is  rendered  capable  by  his  Maker  of  obedience. 

2.  That  ability  to  obey  is  indispensable  to  moral  obligation. 

3.  That  where  there  is  a  want  of  ability  to  love  God,  obligation  to  love 
ceases,  whatever  may  be  the  cause. 

4.  That  the  sinner  is  able  to  do  what  God  commands,  and  what,  being 
done,  would  save  the  soul. 

5.  That  to  be  able  and  unwilling  to  obey  God  is  the  only  possible  way  in 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  87 

whicli  a  free  agent  can  become  deserving  of  condemnation  and  punish- 
ment. 

6.  That  there  is  no  position  which  unites  more  universally  and  entirely 
the  suffrages  of  the  whole  human  race  than  the  necessity  of  a  capacity  for 
obedience  to  the  existence  of  obligation  and  desert  of  punishment. 

7.  That  no  obligation  can  be  created,  without  a  capacity  commensurate 
with  the  demand. 

8.  That  ability  commensurate  with  requirement  is  the  equitable  founda- 
tion of  the  moral  government  of  God. 

9.  That  this  has  been  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Orthodox  Church  in  all 
ages. 

Vide  Sermons  on  Native  Character,  and  Dependence  and  Free  Agency, 
pp.  73,  22,  23,  32,  36. 

On  the  subject  of  total  depravity,  effectual  calling,  and  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  production  of  saving  faith,  the  Scriptures  and  our  stand- 
ards teach  ; 

1.  That  fallen  man  is  utterly  disabled,  and  wholly  defiled  in  all  the 
faculties  and  parts  of  soul  and  body,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and 
wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  by  original  corruption. 

2.  That  from  this  original  corruption  do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions. 

3.  That  effectual  calling  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace,  and  a  work  of 
God's  Spirit  ;  that  men  are  altogether  passive  therein,  until,  being  quick- 
ened and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  are  thereby  enabled  to  answer 
this  call. 

4.  That,  having  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit  created  in  them,  they  are 
sanctified  and  enabled  to  believe. 

5.  That  justifying  faith  is  wrought  in  the  heart  of  a  sinner  by  the  Spirit 
and  "Word  of  God,  whereby  he  is  convinced  of  his  disability  to  recover 
himself. 

Conf ,  ch.  VI.,  sees.  1,  2,  4.    Ch.  x.,  sec.  2.    Ch.  xiii,,  sec.  1.   Ch.  xiv., 
sec.  1.     Larg.  Cat.,  Ans.  to  Quest.  72,  and  Scripture  proofs. 
In  opposition  to  this,  Dr.-Beecher  teaches  ; 

1.  That  man  in  his  present  state  is  able  and  only  unwilling  to  do  what 
God  commands,  and  which,  being  done,  would  save  the  soul. 

2.  That  the  more  clearly  the  light  of  conviction  shines,  the  more  distinct 
is  a  sinner's  perception  that  he  is  not  destitute  of  capacity,  —  that  is,  of 
ability  to  obey  God.* 

*  Dr.  Beecher  uses  the  terms  "  natural  capacity  "  and  "  natural  ability  "  in  the  same 
sense.  —(Dr.  Wilson's  note.) 


88  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

3.  That  when  the  Holy  Spirit  comes  to  search  out  what  is  amiss,  and  put 
in  order  that  which  is  out  of  the  way,  he  finds  no  impediment  to  obedience 
to  be  removed,  but  only  a  perverted  will  ;  and  that  all  which  he  accomplishes 
in  the  day  of  his  power  is  to  make  the  sinner  willing  to  submit  to  God. 

4.  That  good  men  have  supposed  that  they  augment  the  evil  of  sin,  and 
tlie  justice,  mercy  and  power  of  God,  in  exact  proportion  as  they  throw  down 
the  sinner  into  a  condition  of  absolute  impotency  ;  that  he  [Dr.  Beecher] 
cannot  perceive  the  wisdom  of  their  views  ;  that  a  subject  of  God's  govern- 
ment who  can  but  will  not  obey  might  appear  to  himself  much  more 
guilty  than  one  whose  capacity  of  obedience  had  been  wholly  annihilated 
by  the  sin  of  Adam.  —  Sermons  on  Dependence  and  Free  Agency,  pp.  22, 
31,  43. 

III.  I  charge  Dr.  Beecher  with  propagating  a  doctrine  of  Perfection 
contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

Specifications.  —  Our  standards  teach  ; 

1.  That  no  man  is  able,  neither  of  himself  nor  by  grace  received,  to  keep 
the  commandments  of  God,  but  doth  daily  break  them.  —  See  Conf.,  ch.  ix., 
sec.  3.     Larger  Cat.,  Ans.  to  Q.  149,  and  proof-texts. 

In  opposition  to  this,  Dr.  Beeclier  teaches  ; 

1.  That  the  sinner  is  able  to  do  what  God  commands  ;  that  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  the  day  of  his  power,  makes  him  willing,  and  so  long  as  he  is 
able  and  willing  there  can  be  no  sin.  -  Sermon  on  Dependence  and  Free 
Agency,  p.  22. 

2.  The  Perfectionists  have  founded  on  Dr.  Beecher's  theory  the  following 
pinching  argument : 

"  Who  does  not  know  that  theology,  as  renovated  and  redeemed  from 
the  contradictions  and  absurdities  of  former  ages  by  such  spirits  as  Beecher, 
Taylor,  and  their  associates,  forms  the  stepping-stone  to  Perfection  ?  Who, 
that  can  draw  an  obvious  conclusion  from  established  premises,  but  must 
see,  at  a  glance,  that  Christian  Perfection,  substantially  as  we  hold  it,  is  the 
legitimate  product  of  New  England  divinity  ?  We  have  been  taught  in  their 
schools  that  sin  lies  wholly  in  the  will,  and  that  man,  as  a  free  agent,  pos- 
sesses adequate  ability,  independent  of  gracious  aid,  to  render  perfect  obedi- 
ence to  the  moral  law  ;  in  other  words,  to  be  a  Perfectionist.  They  have 
established  the  theory  that,  by  virtue  of  a.  fixedness  of  purpose,  man  is  able 
to  stand  against  the  wiles  of  the  devil,  smd fully  to  answer  the  end  of  his 
being.  Now,  if  this  system,  which  the  opposers  of  the  New  School  men 
were  not  able  to  gainsay,  teaching  man's  ability,  independent  of  gracious 
aid,  to  be  perfect,  to  answer  fully  the  end  for  which  his  INIaker  created 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  89 

him, —  if  this  be  Orthodoxy,  I  ask,  Is  it  heresy  to  affirm  that,  by  virtue  of  aid 
from  a  risen  Saviour,  superadded  to  free  moral  agency,  the  thing  is  done  ? 
I  see  '  no  point  of  rest '  for  the  advocates  of  the  New  Divinity,  short  of  the 
doctrine  of  Perfection.  If  they  will  not  advance,  they  must  go  back,  and 
adopt  the  inability  system  of  their  opponents,  whicli  they  have  so  often  and 
so  ably  demonstrated  to  be  the  climax  of  absurdity  and  folly." —  See  Letter 
to  Theodore  D.  "Weld,  member  of  Lane  Theological  Seminary,  published  in 
The  Perfectionist,  vol.  I.,  No.  1,  August  20, 1834,  by  Whitmore  &  Bucking- 
ham, New  Haven,  Conn. 

IV.    I  charge  Dr.  Beecher  with  the  sin  of  slander,  namely  : 

Specification  1.  —  In  belying  the  whole  church  of  God. 

The  Doctor's  statements  are  these  :  "  There  is  no  position  which  unites 
more  universally  and  entirely  the  suffrages  of  the  whole  human  race  than 
the  necessity  of  a  capacity  for  obedience  to  the  existence  of  obligation  and 
desert  of  punishment."  Again  :  "The  doctrine  of  man^sfree  agency  and 
natural  ability,  as  the  ground  of  obligation  and  guilt,  has  been  the  received 
doctrine  of  the  Orthodox  Church  in  all  ages."  —  Sermon  •'  Dependence  and 
Free  Agency,"  pp.  23  and  36. 

SrECiFiCATiON  2.  —  In  attempting  to  bring  odium  upon  all  who  sincerely 
receive  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  to  cast  all  the 
Reformers,  previous  to  the  time  of  Edwards,  into  the  shade  of  ignorance  and 
contempt. 

Dr.  Beecher  says  :  "  Doubtless  the  impression  often  made  by  their 
language  (language  of  the  Reformers)  has  been  that  of  natural  im- 
potency  ;  and  in  modern  days  there  may  be  those  who  have  not  under- 
stood the  language  of  the  Reformers,  or  of  the  Bible,  on  this  subject ; 
and  who  verily  believe  that  both  teach  that  man  has  no  ability,  of  any  kind 
or  degree,  to  do  anything  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  that  the  rights  of 
God  to  command  and  to  punish  survive  the  vnreck  and  extinction  in  his 
subjects  of  the  elements  of  accountability.  Of  such,  if  there  be  such  in  the 
church,  we  have  only  to  say,  that  when,  for  the  time,  they  ought  to  be 
teachers,  they  have  need  that  some  one  should  teach  them  which  be  the 
first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God." — Sermon  "Dependence  and  Fi*ec 
Agency,"  p.  41.     Again  : 

"It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  from  the  primitive  age  down  to  the 
time  of  Edwards,  few  saw  this  subject  with  clearness,  or  traced  it  with  uni- 
form precision  and  consistency.  His  appears  to  have  been  tlie  mind  that  first 
rose  above  the  mists  which  long  hung  over  the  subject." — p.  41.     Again  : 

"  So  far  as  the  Calvinistic  system,  as  expounded  by  Edwards  and  the 

VOL.    III.  8* 


90  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

disciples  of  his  school,  prevailed,  revivals  prevailed,  and  heresy  was  kept 
back.  And  most  notoriomly  it  was  '  dead  orthodoxy  '  which  opened  the 
dikes,  and  let  in  the  flood  '  of  Arminianand  Unitarian  heresy. '  "  By  attend- 
ing to  the  whole  passage,  page  48,  same  sermon,  the  Presbytery  will  see 
that  "  dead  orthodoxy,"  as  the  Doctor  calLs  it,  was  the  doctrine  of  man's 
natural  impotency  to  obey  the  Gospel.  —  p.  48.  The  Doctor  attempts  to 
make  us  believe  that,  from  the  time  of  Edwards,  the  theory  of  this  sermon 
has  been,  and  now  is,  the  received  doctrine  of  the  ministers  and  churches 
of  New  England.  The  truth  of  this  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit,  bad  as  I 
think  of  the  New  England  theologians  in  general  ;  but  I  am  not  prepared 
to  deny  it.  Be  it  so,  —  the  matter  is  so  much  the  worse.  Again  the  Doctor 
proceeds,  in  his  strain  of  calumny,  —  "Far  the  greater  portion  of  the 
revivals  of  our  land,  it  is  well  known,  have  come  to  pass  under  the 
auspices  of  Calvinism,  as  modified  by  Edwards  and  the  disciples  of  his 
school,  and  under  the  inculcation  of  ability  and  obligation,  and  urgent 
exhortations  of  immediate  repentance  and  submission  to  God  ;  while  con- 
gregations and  regions  over  which  natural  impotency  and  dependence, 
and  the  impenitent  use  of  means,  and  waiting  God's  time,  have  disclosed 
their  tendencies,  have  remained,  like  Egypt,  dark  beside  the  land  of 
Goshen  ;  and  like  the  mountain  of  Gilboa,  on  which  there  was  no  rain,  nor 
fields  of  offering  ;  and  like  the  valley  of  vision,  dead,  dry,  very  dry."  — 
p.  49. 

And,  to  complete  the  climax,  the  Doctor  adds  :  "  No  other  obstruction  to 
the  success  of  the  Gospel  is  so  great,  as  the  possession  of  the  public 
mind  by  the  belief  of  the  natural  and  absolute  inability  of  unconverted 
men.  It  has  done  more,  I  verily  believe,  to  wrap  in  sackcloth  the  Sun  of 
Eighteousness,  and  perpetuate  the  shadow  of  death  on  those  who  might 
have  been  rejoicing  in  his  light,  than  all  errors  beside.  I  cannot  anticipate 
a  greater  calamity  to  the  church  than  would  follow  its  universal  inculcation 
and  adoption.  And  most  blessed  and  glorious,  I  am  confident,  will  be  the 
result,  when  her  ministry  everywhere  shall  rightly  understand  and  teach, 
and  their  hearers  shall  universally  admit,  Hie  full  ability  of  every  sinner 
to  comply  with  the  terms  of  salvation."  — p.  52. 

Let  the  Presbytery  compare  all  this  with  the  history  of  the  Church,  and 
the  doctrine  of  our  standards  on  original  sin,  total  depravity,  the  misery 
of  the  fall,  regeneration,  and  eflfectual  calling,  and  say  whether  there  is  an 
Arminian,  or  a  Pelagian,  or  a  Unitarian,  in  the  land,  who  will  not  agree 
with  Dr.  Beecher,  and  admit  "  the  full  ability  of  every  sinner  to  comply 
with  the  terms  of  salvation,"  and  unite  with  him  in  considei'ing  it  a 
calamity  for  the  doctrines  of  our  standards  to  be  universally  adopted  ! 


TRIAL   BEFOUE   PRESBYTERY.  91 

V.  I  cliargc  Dr.  Bcccher  with  the  crime  of  preaching  tlic  same,  und. 
kindred  doctrines,  contained  in  these  sermons,  in  the  Second  Presbyterian 
church,  in  Cincinnati. 

VI.  I  charge  Dr.  Beecher  with  the  sin  of  hypocrisy  :  I  mean  dissimula- 
tion in  important  religious  matters. 

Specification  1.  —  If  Dr.  Beecher  has  entered  the  Presbyterian  Church 
without  adopting  her  standards,  he  is  guilty  of  this  sin.  This  I  believe, 
because  I  am  informed  he  was  received  as  a  member  of  the  Third  Presbytery 
of  New  York,  without  appearing  before  them  ;  because  he  was  received  by 
the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  without  adopting  our  standards  ;  and  because 
the  installation  service  does  not  require  their  adoption. 

2.  If  Dr.  Beecher  has  adopted  our  standards,  he  is  guilty  of  this  sin, 
because  it  is  evident  he  disbelieves  and  impugns  them  on  important  points, 
subjects  declared  by  himself  to  be  of  the  utmost  moment. 

3.  When  Dr.  Beecher's  orthodoxy  was  in  question,  — I  think  before  the 
Synod  in  the  First  Presbyterian  church,  —  he  made  a  popular  declaration 
"  that  our  confession  of  faith  contained  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth,"  or  words  to  that  amount.  I  thought  then,  and  still 
think,  that  it  was  dissimulation  for  popular  effect.  The  crime  is  inferable 
from  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  If  he  has  adopted  the  standards  of  our 
Church,  as  our  form  of  government  requires,  it  is  competent  for  him  to 
show  when  and  where.  But  the  charge  of  hypocrisy  is  equally  sustained, 
in  my  estimation,  whether  he  has  or  has  not.  He  may  take  whichever 
alternative  he  can  best  defend. 

4.  When  Dr.  Beecher  preached  and  published  his  sermon  on  Dependence 
and  Free  Agency,  he  was  just  about  to  enter  the  Presbyterian  Church,  with 
an  expectation  of  being  pastor  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church  of  Cincin- 
nati, and  teacher  of  theology  in  Lane  Seminary.  He  either  did  not  know 
the  doctrines  of  our  Church,  or,  if  he  did  know  them,  he  designed  to 
impugn  and  vilify  those  who  honestly  adopt  them. 

My  witnesses  to  prove  that  he  published  the  sermon  in  view  of  entering 
the  Presbyterian  Church  are  Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover,  and  Prof.  Stuart, 
Prof.  Briggs,  Robert  Boal,  Jabcz  C.  Tunis,  Augustus  Moore,  James  Mc- 
Intire  and  P.  Skinner.  The  allegation  respecting  the  Perfectionists,  if 
denied,  can  be  pi'oven  by  their  publication,  from  which  I  have  made  an 
extract.  Charges  1,2,3  and  4,  are  sustained  by  Dr.  Beecher's  printed 
sermons  on  the  'Native  Character  of  Man,"  and  on  "Dependence  and 
Free  Agency,"  both  of  which  are  herewith  submitted  for  examination. 

If  Dr.  Beecher  denies  being  the  author  of  these  sermons,  published  under 


92  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

his  name,  the  authorship  can  be  proved  by  Rev.  Austin  Dickinson,  Rev.  Dr. 
Woods,  of  Andover,  and  Perkins  &  Marvin,  of  Boston,  Mass.  The  witnesses 
to  prove  the  5th  charge  are  Augustus  Moore,  Jeptha  D.  Ganst,  John  Sul- 
livan, Robert  Wallace,  James  Mclntire,  P.  Skinner  and  James  Hall,  Esq. 

The  third  specification  under  charge  6th  I  expect  to  prove,  if  it  be 
denied,  by  the  members  of  this  Presbytery,  including  myself ;  but  I  will 
name  Rev.  Say  res  Gazley,  John  Burtt,  L.  G.  Gaines,  Daniel  Hayden,  and 
others. 

And  now,  brethren,  you  will  not  forget  that  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati  have 
enjoined  it  upon  you  to  exercise  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  even  upon 
those  who  disturb  her  peace  by  new  terms  and  phrases  ;  much  more  are 
you  bound  to  exercise  it  on  those  who  destroy  her  purity  by  false  doctrine, 
and  vilify  her  true  ministry. 

In  the  case  of  Dr.  Beecher,  I  send  you  an  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the 
Synod  :  "  The  Synod  do  not  say  that  there  are  not  sufficient  reasons  for 
the  Presbytery  to  take  up  a  charge  or  charges  on  common  fame  ;  but  are 
fully  of  the  opinion  that,  of  that,  Presbytery  has  full  liberty  to  judge  for 
themselves  ;  and  that  they  can  be  compelled  to  take  up  a  charge  only  by  a 
responsible  prosecutor."  An  attested  copy  of  their  decision  I  herewith 
submit. 

I  feel  it  a  solemn  transaction  to  accuse  any  one,  especially  a  professed 
minister  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  sometimes  a  duty  to  do  this.  The  obliga- 
tion in  this  case  rests  upon  somebody,  and  I  know  of  no  one  who  will  dis- 
charge it  but  myself.  I  have  not  consulted  flesh  and  blood,  but  the 
interests  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  before  whose  judgment-seat  we 
must  all  appear.  I  have  counted  the  cost ;  and  now  call  upon  you,  in 
presence  of  God,  for  your  due  deliberation  and  decision  upon  every  charge 
submitted. 

With  all  due  regard,  I  am  your  brother  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 

J.  L.  Wilson. 

Dr.  Beecher  being  called  upon  to  answer,  said:  "  I  am 
not  guilty  of  heresy ;  I  am  not  guilty  of  slander ;  I  am  not 
guilty  of  hypocrisy  or  dissimulation  in  the  respect  charged. 
I  do  not  say  that  I  have  not  taught  the  doctrines  charged ; 
but  I  deny  their  being  false  doctrines.  The  course  I  shall 
take  will  be  to  justify." 

The  Moderator  calUng  upon  Dr.  Beecher  to  say  what 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.         "  93 

pica  should  be  entered  upon  the  minutes  in  his  name,  Dr. 
Bccchcr  replied,  "  The  plea  of  Not  Guilty." 

Dr.  Wilson  said  he  supposed  Dr.  Beecher  took  the  proper 
distinction  between  facts  and  crimes.  He  admitted  the  facts 
specified,  but  denied  the  crimes  charged.  Dr.  Wilson  wished 
to  know  whether  the  admission  extended  to  one  of  the  facts 
respecting  which  no  crime  was  charged,  but  which  had  been 
stated  because  it  w^as  closely  connected  and  linked  in  with 
the  other  facts  of  the  case,  namely,  that  Dr.  Beecher  had 
declared  before  the  Synod  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  contained  the  truth,  the  whole  truth, 
and  nothing  but  the  truth. 

Dr.  Beecher  replied  that  he  should  not  admit  the  fact 
stated  in  that  naked  form ;  he  would  not  admit  the  words 
quoted,  without  other  words  by  which  they  had  been  accom- 
panied. 

Dr.  Wilson  then  said  that  as  to  this  point  he  should  ask 
leave  to  adduce  testimony. 

A  commission  was  then  granted,  to  take  the  testimony  of 
Professor  Biggs,  who  was  in  feeble  health,  and  unable  to 
attend  the  court. 

The  Rev.  Sayres  Gasley  was  then  duly  sworn  and 
examined,  and  his  testimony  having  been  taken  down  by  the 
clerk  and  read  to  him,  he  approved  the  record  as  correct.  It 
is  as  follows : 

I  remember  the  circumstance  which  occurred  in  Synod  to 
which  the  charge  alludes.  The  precise  words  contained  in 
the  specification  I  do  not  recollect.  My  impression  seems 
clear  that,  in  speaking  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Dr. 
Beecher  said  that  it  was  true,  every  sentence  and  every 
word,  and  that  he  so  believed  it. 


94  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

Question.  —  What  were  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  above  declaration  was  made  ? 

Answer.  — I  cannot  say  positively,  but,  to  the  best  of  my 
belief,  it  was  in  Dr.  Beecher's  plea  before  Synod,  in  an 
appeal  from  Dr.  Wilson,  because  Presbytery  would  not 
appoint  a  committee  to  investigate  his  sermon. 

Dr.  WiLSOX.  —  Was  not  the  declaration  made  when  Dr. 
Beecher  was  making  a  speech  on  that  subject  7 

Ans.  —  That  is  my  impression. 

Ques.  by  Dr.  WiLSOX.  —  Was  there  a  considerable  crowd 
of  spectators  around  the  Synod  at  that  time  ? 

Ans.  —  I  do  not  recollect. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Was  there  not  considerable  excitement 
during  the  discussion  of  that  subject? 

Ans.  —  There  was. 

Rankin.  —  Was  there  anything  in  the  Doctor's  manner 
which  induced  you  to  believe  that  it  was  done  for  popular 
effect? 

Ans.  —  I  have  no  distinct  recollection  at  present  of  notic- 
ing his  manner,  but  from  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  I 
was  led  to  that  opinion. 

Rankin.  —  What  were  the  circumstances  of  the  case  ? 

Ans.  —  The  published  sentiments  of  Dr.  Beecher,  and  the 
place  where  it  was  uttered. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Was  not  Dr.  Beecher  at  that  time 
making  an  effort  to  prevent  Synod  from  sustaining  my  com- 
plaint ? 

Ans.  —  That  is  my  impression  now,  but  I  cannot  say 
positively.     [Read  to  witness,  and  approved.] 

The  Presbytery  then  adjourned. 


trial  before  presbytery.  95 

Wednesday  Morning. 

Presbytery  met,  and  was  opened  with  prayer. 

The  Rev.  A.  S.  Morison,  from  the  commission  appointed 
to  take  the  testimony  of  Professor  Biggs,  made  the  following 
report : 

Walnut  Hills,  June  10,  1835. 

Meeting  opened  with  prayer. 

Dr.  Wilson  wished  Mr.  Biggs  to  state  what  he  knew  on 
the  subject,  —  Whether  any  Perfectionists  were  in  attendance 
at  Lane  Seminary  the  last  year  ? 

Ansiver.  —  As  young  men  whose  minds  were  made  up  on 
that  subject,  I  do  not  know  that  there  were  any. 

Dr.  Wilson. — Were  there  not  students  in  Lane  Semi- 
nary who  were  making  inquiries  and  manifesting  tendencies 
that^way  ? 

Ans.  —  I  am  under  the  impression  that  there  were  some. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  From  what  sections  of  country  did  those 
young  men  come  I 

Ans.  —  From  the  State  of  New  York.  I  think  I  had 
but  two  or  three  at  all  in  my  mind,  of  whom  I  had  any 
suspicion. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Wliat  information  did  Prof  Biggs  give 
me  on  this  subject  in  a  conversation  we  had  at  Hamilton  ? 

Ans.  —  That  Dr.  Beecher,  so  far  from  countenancing  the 
doctrine  of  Perfectionism,  warned  his  students  against  such 
sentiments. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Were  not  the  statements  you  made  to  me 
calculated  to  impress  my  mind  with  the  belief  that  the  stu- 
dents who  manifested  such  tendencies  to  Perfectionism  were 
led  to  place  themselves  under  Dr.  Beecher' s  instruction  in 
consequence  of  his  published  views  of  theology  7 

Ans.  —  I  have  no  recollection  that  they  were. 


96  VIEAVS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

Dr.  Eeecher.  —  Did  you  ever  hear  any  one  of  tlie  stu- 
dents, at  any  time,  avow  the  doctrine  of  Perfection  ? 

Ans.  —  I  never  did. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Had  you  any  evidence  of  tendency  to 
that  doctrine,  further  than  what  results  from  questions  com- 
mon to  inquiring  minds,  in  the  investigation  of  a  subject, 
with  reference  to  the  formation  of  an  opinion  ? 

A71S.  —  I  believe  their  inquiries  were  all  directed  with  a 
view  to  the  formation  of  an  ultimate  opinion. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Were  you  apprized  of  the  fact  that  one 
of  my  lectures  was  on  the  subject  of  Christian  Character,  and 
in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  Perfection  ? 

Ans.  —  I  so  understood. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Did  you  cite  T.  D.  Weld  to  appear  before 
Presbytery  as  a  witness  in  this  case  1 

Ans.  —  I  did  not,  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  I  understood  that  the  citation  of  all  witnesses,  except 
the  members  of  the  Presbytery,  was  dispensed  with  by 
agreement  of  the  parties. 

2.  The  same  was  understood  by  several  of  the  brethren  of 
the  Presbytery,  with  whom  I  conversed  on  the  subject,  after 
the  meeting  of  Presbytery,  for  the  purpose  of  being  myself 
certified  of  the  fact. 

To  which  I  herewith  affix  my  signature, 

Th.  I.  Biggs. 

The  following  witnesses  were  then  duly  sworn,  and  their 
testimony  recorded,  as  follows  : 

Francis  MonforVs  Testimony. 

I  recollect  very  well  that  Dr.  Beecher  said, —  I  believe 
the  Confession  of  Faith  contains  the  truth,  the  whole  truth, 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  97 

and  nothing  but  the  truth;  after  having  shown  that  he 
received  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  a  system. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Where,  and  under  what  circumstances, 
was  the  dechiration  made  7 

Answer.  —  It  was  in  the  First  Church,  in  Synod,  on  the 
complaint  of  Dr.  Wilson  and  others  against  Presbytery  for 
not  appointing  a  committee  to  examine  certain  sermons  of 
Dr.  Beecher. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  What  were  the  circumstances  ? 

A71S.  —  The  doctor  was  giving  his  last  address ;  the  house 
was  full ;  there  was  considerable  excitement. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  When  the  same  subject  was  before  Pres- 
bytery, did  not  Dr.  Beecher  express  .  his  approbation  of  the 
standards  of  the  Church,  with  the  reservation  of  putting  upon 
them  his  interpretation  1 

A?is.  —  So  I  understood  it. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Was  the  statement  made  before  Synod 
attended  by  an  explanation  or  qualification  7 

A71S.  —  I  heard  none. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Did  I  profess  before  the  Synod  a  belief 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith  according  to  any  other  interpreta- 
tion than  the  one  I  put  upon  it  7 

Alls.  —  I  heard  nothing  said  about  interpretation.  [Read 
to  witness,  and  approved.] 

Mr.  Aton's  Testimony. 

I  recollect  distinctly  that  in  the  time  and  place  specified 
in  the  charges  — 

[Dr.  Beecher  admits  that  the  time,  place  and  audience, 
were  as  described  by  the  preceding  witness.] 

Wit?iess  resumed.  —  Dr.  Beecher  said  he  believed  the 
Confession  of  Faith  contained  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 

vol.  iil  0 


98  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

nothing  but  the  truth.     I  heard  no  quahfications.     [Read, 
&c.] 

Mr.  Gaines^  Testimony. 
I   recollect  very   little   distinctly.     I  recollect  that  Dr. 
Beecher  uttered  the  words  mentioned  by  Mr.  Aton,  and  made 
a  gesture  more  violent  than  usual ;  cannot  recollect  whether 
it  was  before  Presbytery  or  Synod.     [Read,  &c.] 

Mr.  Burt's  Testimony. 

I  agree  with  the  witnesses  in  respect  to  the  time,  place  and 
circumstances,  so  far  as  I  have  heard.  I  distinctly  recollect 
that  the  Doctor,  in  the  course  of  his  speech,  stated  that  the 
Confession  of  Faith  contained  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth.  Not  expecting  to  be  called  upon,  I 
have  not  treasured  up  a  recollection  of  the  circumstances, 
whether  there  were  any  qualifications  or  not.     [Read,  &c.] 

J).  Hay  den's  Testimony. 

I  heard  Dr.  Beecher  say  that  he  believed  the  Confession 
of  Faith  to  contain  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing 
but  the  truth.  I  remember  no  qualifying  statements.  I 
think  I  should  have  remembered  such  quahfications,  had  they 
been  made. 

Dr.  "Wilson.  —  What  was  the  declaration  in  Presbytery 
on  the  same  subject  7 

Answer.  —  I  do  not  recollect.     [Read,  &c.] 

F.  A.  Kemper's  Testimony. 

I  was  a  member  of  Synod  in  1833.  Dr.  Beecher  said  he 
beheved  the  Confession  of  Faith  contained  the  truth,  the 
whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.     He  made  no  ex- 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  99 

planation  at  the  time.  When  Dr.  Wilson  was  replying,  Dr. 
Beecher  got  up  and  made  explanations. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Was  you  a  member  of  Presbytery  at 
the  time  the  same  subject  was  up  there  7 

Ansiver.  —  I  think  I  was. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  What  were  Dr.  Beecher's  declarations  as 
to  his  reception  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  there  1 

Ans.  —  That  he  adopted  it  as  a  system  ;  the  Doctor  called 
no  man  Father  on  earth,  nor  allowed  any  man  to  explain  the 
Bible  or  Confession  of  Faith  to  him. 

Mr.  Gaines.  —  Had  the  explanations  reference  to  the 
words,  or  something  else  ? 

Ans.  —  To  the  words  only. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  What  were  the  explanations  1 

Ans.  —  I  do  not  recollect.     [Read,  &c.] 

Judge  Jacob  BurneVs  Testimony. 

Called  in  by  Dr.  Beecher. 

I  was  present  at  the  time  referred  to  by  the  other  wit- 
nesses. I  heard  Dr.  Beecher's  address  to  the  Synod.  I 
recollect  distinctly  that  in  that  part  of  his  address  in  whicli 
he  spoke  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  he  said  that  there  had 
been  a  time  when  he  could  not  subscribe  to  the  whole  of  it ; 
but  by  mature  deliberation,  and  ascertaining  to  his  own  satis- 
faction what  was  the  meaning  attached  to  the  terms  wdien  the 
Co^jfession  of  Faith  was  written,  the  difficulty  was  entirely 
removed.  He  added  that  he  now  believed  the  Confession  of 
Faith  contained  the  truth,  and  I  thought  he  said  the  whole 
truth.  He  raised  his  hands  to  his  bosom,  and  said  he  beheved 
it  to  be  one  of  the  best  expositions  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Scripture.     I  cannot  give  his  words  precisely.     [Read,  &c.] 


100  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

A.  Duncan^ s  Testimony. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  How  long  have  you  been  a  member  of 
Lane  Seminary  7 

Ansiver.  —  Two  years  and  a  half. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  How  long  a  member  of  the  Theological 
Class? 

Arts.  —  About  a  year  and  a  half 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Have  you  heard  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Weed,  and  do  your  \dews  correspond  with  his  7 

Ans.  —  Yes  ;  except  that  my  recollection  of  the  discussion 
is  not  as  distinct  as  his. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Did  you  see  the  letter  addressed  to  T.  D. 
Weld,  in  the  Perfectionist  7 

Ans.  —  I  saw  it  in  Delhi,  two  miles  from  this  city. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Who  wrote  that  letter  7 

Ans.  —  I  do  not  distinctly  recollect  his  name ;  I  think  it 
was  Dutton. 

Dr.  AYiLSON.  — What  was  the  general  character  and  standing 
of  Mr.  Dutton  7 

Ans.  —  I  know  nothing  about  him.  except  that  he  was  once 
studying  theology  with'  Mr.  Kirk,  of  Albany.  I  have  heard 
his  intellect  spoken  of  as  one  of  great  value. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  On  what  occasion  and  in  what  manner  did 
Dr.  Beecher  warn  the  students  against  the  Perfectionists  7 

Ans.  —  I  recollect  no  such  warnings.  I  never  heard  of 
them,  until  I  saw  the  letter  in  the  Perfectionist  at  D^lhi. 
I  heard  the  lecture  mentioned  by  Mr.  Weed. 

George  Beecher.  —  Did  you  see  the  written  or  printed 
copy  of  the  letter  7 

Ans.  —  The  printed. 

Mr.  Rankin.  — Do  you  know  why  he  left  Mr.  Kirk  7 

Ans.  —  No. 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  101 

Mr.  Rankin.  —  Was  the  Pe^/ec^zowis^'s  letter  addressed 
to  Mr.  Weld,  on  the  supposition  that  he  was  a  Perfectionist  7 

A71S.  —  No.  It  contained  a  labored  argument  to  show  him 
the  truth  of  those  doctrines. 

Mr.  Graves.  —  Did  you  ever  hear  that  Dr.  Beecher  was 
suspected  of  Perfectionism  ? 

Ans.  —  Never,  until  I  heard  these  charges.     [Read,  &c.] 

Mr.  Lillh^s  Testimony. 

Dr.  Beeciier.  —  What  are  your  recollections  of  my  language 
before  Synod '? 

Answer.  —  I  concur  with  Judge  Burnet  and  Mr.  Woodbury, 
except  I  heard  this  expression  a  little  stronger  than  their 
language  :  "  Dr.  B.  said  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Cate- 
chisms contained  the  best  compendium  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Bible  he  had  seen."     [Read,  &c.] 

Mr.  Brainerd^s  Testimony. 

I  have  seen  the  paper  called  the  Perfectionist,  and  read  it 
carefully.  I  have  seen  also  many  other  extracts  from  the 
writings  of  the  Perfectionists.  They  have  three  ways  of  be- 
coming perfect.  The  first  is,  they  believe  themselves  able  to 
obey  God,  and  do  so.  When  pushed  with  difficulties  in  that 
view  of  the  subject,  they  represent  themselves  as  being,  by 
the  literal  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  them, 
in  that  condition  that  God  looks  upon  them  as  one  with  Christ, 
and  does  not  regard  their  sins  as  sins.  Again,  they  repre- 
sent, sometimes,  their  perfection  to  be  the  result  of  the  special 
grace  of  God  ;  they  say  that  God  hears  and  answers  all  right 
prayer,  that  their  perfection  is  a  grace  received  in  answer  to 
their  prayers. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Is  not  the  whole  theory  of  the  Perfectionists 

VOL.  in.  9* 


102  VIEWS   or   THEOLOGY. 

built  upon  the  hypothesis  of  the  natural  ability  of  man  to  do 
all  that  God  requires,  and  that  sin  lies  wholly  in  the  will  'I 

Ansiver.  —  No  :  with  those  that  believe  in  natural  ability 
and  moral  inability,  they  reason  according  to  the  sentiment  of 
the  question  ;  with  others,  that  deny  this  doctrine,  they  reason 
upon  a  different  assumption. 

Dr.  "Wilson.  • —  With  what  difficulties  are  those  pressed  who 
hold  to  the  ability  of  man  to  do  what  God  requires,  and  say 
they  do  it  7 

Ans.  —  I  will  not  pretend  to  state  all.  The  fact  is  shown, 
from  their  own  conduct,  that  they  do  violate  the  laws  of  God  ; 
those  passages  of  scripture  are  opposed  to  them,  which  state 
that  Christians,  though  not  constrained  by  natural  necessity, 
do  sin. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  What  practices  of  the  Perfectionists  contra- 
dict their  theory  and  profession,  and  how  do  you  know  that 
they  are  guilty  of  those  practices  7 

Alls.  —  They  appear  to  fall  into  the  same  sins  as  other 
men,  and  I  learn  the  fact  that  they  thus  sin,  1st,  by  the  Bible, 
which  teacheth  that  no  man  liveth  and  sinneth  not ;  and  2d,  by 
the  statements  of  their  opponents,  brought  out  in  the  publica- 
tions of  the  day. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Are  you  personally  and  intimately  ac- 
quainted with  any  persons  of  that  denomination  ? 

Ans.  —  I  never  saw  one. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  What  do  they  mean  by  the  literal  imputa- 
tion of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  7 

Ans.  —  They  seem  to  mean,  that  they  are  so  united  to 
Christ,  that  all  his  obedience  becomes  theirs,  in  such  a  sense 
as  to  release  them  from  criminality,  although  they  violate  the 
law  of  God. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Do  those  Calvinists  who  teach  the  doctrine 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  103 

of  the  literal  imputation  of  Christ's  Righteousness  to  believers 
deny  the  doctrine  of  man's  natural  ability? 

A?is.  —  In  speculation  they  do  ;  in  practice  I  believe  most 
of  them  assume  it  to  be  true. 

Mr.  Gasley.  —  Did  not  the  system  originate  with  those  who 
held  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  7 

A71S.  —  From  the  region  where  it  originated,  I  should  think 
it  probable ;  but  I  have  no  certain  knowledge. 

Mr.  E.ANKIN.  —  Does  not  their  system  teach  that  man  has 
by  nature  both  natural  and  moral  ability  to  do  all  that  God 
requires  of  him  ? 

A?is.  —  Strictly  speaking,  I  think  not ;  they  do  not  deny 
that  men  have  by  nature  an  aversion  to  God,  which  has  been 
called  inability,  which  makes  regeneration  necessary. 

Mr.  Aton.  —  What  do  those  Calvinists  mean  who  teach  the 
literal  imputation  of  Christ's  Righteousness? 

Ans.  —  There  is  a  class  of  professed  Calvinists  who  seem 
to  teach  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  the  same  doctrine  as  the 
Perfectionists ;  but  this  I  would  not  apply  to  any  of  those 
who  hold  and  teach  the  doctrine  of  imputation  in  the  sense  of 
our  Confession  of  Eaith.     [Read,  &c.] 

The  oral  testimony  having  now  been  completed  ; 

The  first  charge  was  read  a  second  time,  and,  as  it  referred 
to  certain  passages  in  Dr.  Beecher's  sermons,  the  clerk  w^as 
about  to  read  the  passages  cited ;  when 

Mr.  Rankin  moved  that  the  entire  sermon,  and  not  ex- 
tracts only,  be  read. 

Dr.  Wilson  said,  that  if  the  whole  sermon  was  to  be  read 
because  a  part  of  it  was  referred  to  in  the  charges,  the  whole 
Confession  of  Faith  might  as  well  be  read,  for  certain  parts  of 
it  were  also  cited. 


104  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

Professor  Biggs  could  not  consent  that  merely  isolated 
passages  should  be  read ;  he  should  be  most  unwilling  to  have 
his  own  character  tried  by  garbled  extracts  selected  from  his 
writings  ;  he  could  in  that  manner  prove  every  man  in  the 
Presbytery  a  heretic.  Let  the  connection  of  the  passages  with 
their  context  be  seen ;  let  their  bearing  be  understood ;  let 
the  Presbytery  receive  the  same  impression  as  the  audience 
had  received,  before  whom  the  sermons  were  delivered ;  and 
as  to  the  objection  which  had  been  urged,  if  it  was  necessary 
for  consistency's  sake  to  read  the  whole  Confession  of  Faith, 
let  it  be  read. 

Mr.  Rankin  said  there  was  an  obvious  difference  between 
the  reading  of  the  Confession  and  the  reading  of  the  sermon. 
The  Confession  of  Faith  was  not  introduced  before  the  court 
as  evidence  ;  the  sermon  had  been  :  nor  could  the  court  have 
any  just  and  adequate  conception  of  what  the  passages  cited 
conveyed,  unless  they  listened  to  the  whole,  and  understood 
the  connection.  Besides,  in  one  part  of  the  charge  the  sermons 
at  large  were  cited,  without  any  particular  passages  being 
specified. 

Dr.  Wilson  admitted,  on  reflection,  that  the  cases  of  the 
Confession  and  the  Sermon  were  not  analogous.  He  had  no 
objection  to  the  reading  of  the  sermons  entire  :  it  could  do  no 
harm :  but  he  wished  the  court  to  bear  in  mind  that  there  was 
such  a  thing  as  insinuating  the  most  deadly  poison  into  the 
most  wholesome  aliment.  He  was  ready  to  admit  that  the 
sermons  (and  he  had  read  them  attentively  many  times)  did 
contain  many  things  that  were  excellent :  but  the  ground  of 
his  charge  was  that  the  author  had  placed  in  the  very  midst 
of  them  the  most  deleterious  poison.  Were  Dr.  Wilson 
invited  to  partake  of  a  dish  of  what  appeared  to  be  food  of  the 
most  nutritious  kind,  and  after  commencing,  and  finding  it 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  106 

to  be  delicious  and  wholesome,  he  should  suddenly  come  to  a 
deposit  of  arsenic,  he  should  stop,  and  eat  no  more,  unless  he 
could  with  certainty  pass  over  that  portion  of  the  preparation, 
and  complete  his  meal  with  what  was  not  poisoned.  Let  the 
whole  be  read :  the  court,  he  was  well  assured,  would  be  able 
to  separate  the  precious  from  the  vile. 

Dr.  Beeciier  said  it  was  his  right  to  have  the  documents 
referred  to  in  the  charges  read  entire. 

The  Moderator  admitted  this :  but  expressed  a  doubt 
whether  the  present  was  the  proper  stage  in  the  proceedings  at 
which  this  right  might  be  exercised.  In  his  defence  Dr. 
Beecher  might  very  properly  give  the  whole  sermon  in  argu- 
ment, to  show  that  the  charge  was  not  well  founded. 

Dr.  Beeciier  still  insisted  on  having  the  whole  read.  If 
Dr.  Wilson  wished  to  verify  the  extracts  he  had  made,  Dr. 
Beecher  was  ready  to  admit  their  accuracy  :  at  least,  he  took  it 
for  granted  the  passages  had  been  copied  correctly.  But  it  was 
certainly  the  fair  and  correct  mode  of  proceeding  to  allow  the 
body  of  the  sermon,  as  delivered,  to  make  its  own  impression, 
and  then  the  force  of  the  passages  excepted  to  could  be  better 
judged  of  In  no  well-constructed  sermon  could  a  single  pas- 
sage give  the  effect  of  the  whole.  A  sermon  was  heretical  or 
otherwise  according  to  the  combined  and  intended  results  of 
all  its  parts  taken  together.  In  every  properly  written  ser- 
mon, the  combined  effect  was  the  end  aimed  at,  and  all  the 
parts  were  so  arranged,  and  so  made  to  follow,  each  other,  as 
best  to  secure  that  end.  Let  the  sermon  tell  its  own  story : 
and  then  the  court  might  make  what  analysis  of  it  they  might 
deem  proper. 

The  sermons  on  the  Native  Character  of  Man  —  as  given 
in  this  volume,  pp.  53 — 82  —  were  thereupon  read. 

The  second,  third  and  fourth  charges  were  read  :  and  then 


106  VIEWS   or  THEOLOGY. 

the  sermon  to  which  they  referred,  namely,  "  Dependence  and 
Free  Agency,"  a  sermon  delivered  in  Andover  Theological 
Seminary,  July  16,  1832,  —  as  given  in  this  volume,  pp. 
13—52. 

Dr.  Wilson  stated  that  he  wished  to  lay  before  the  Presby- 
tery certain  information  showing  on  what  grounds  he  had  been 
induced  to  state  that  the  Perfectionists  claimed  Dr.  Beecher 
as  strengthening  their  hypothesis. 

The  Moderator  inquired  whether  Dr.  Wilson  wished  to 
introduce  this  information  as  testimony  in  support  of  any  one 
of  the  charges  he  had  preferred  ? 

He  replied  that  he  did  not :  it  was  a  letter  from  an  indi- 
vidual who  was  not  and  could  not  be  present,  and  whose  testi- 
mony had  not  been  formally  taken. 

After  a  discussion,  the  letter  to  which  Dr.  Wilson  referred 
was  permitted  to  be  read.  It  was  a  letter  contained  in  a 
newspaper  published  at  New  Haven,  entitled  ''  The  Perfec- 
tionist^^'' amd  addressed  to  Theodore  Weld,  late  a  student  in 
Lane  Seminary. 

The  letter  being  very  long,  and  appearing  to  be  on  a  subject 
wholly  unconnected  with  the  matter  in  hand,  it  was  moved 
that  the  reading  be  arrested,  and  that  only  so  much  be  read 
as  Dr.  Wilson  had  referred  to. 

The  Moderator  decided,  that,  if  any  part  of  the  paper  was 
read,  the  whole  must  be. 

Mr.  Rankin  inquired  what  was  the  signature  of  the  letter. 

The  Clerk  stated  that  it  had  no  signature  :  whereupon,  on 
motion  of  Mr.  Burnet,  seconded  by  Prof  Biggs,  the  paper 
was  rejected,  as  being  no  testimony. 

Dr.  Wilson  gave  notice  that  he  took  exception  to  this  de- 
cision ;  in  order  that  he  might  avail  himself  of  such  exception, 
should  the  case  go  up  to  Synod.     And  also,  that  he  should 


TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  107 

avail  himself  of  the  testimony  introduced  by  Dr.  Beecher 
before  the  last  meeting  of  Presbytery,  namely,  his  own  sermon, 
with  a  review  of  the  same  by  Dr.  Green. 

The  examination  of  testimony  being  resumed ; 

Dr.  WilSon  stated  that  he  had  no  further  testimony  on  the 
part  of  the  charges. 

Silas  Woodbury  was  examined,  and  his  testimony  is  as 
follows : 

I  was  present  in  the  Synod,  when  Dr.  Beecher  gave  his 
statement;  and  facts  are  substantially  as  given  by  Judge 
Burnet,  according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

The  testimony  being  now  closed,  it  was  moved  that  the 
parties  be  heard. 

Dr.  Wilson  stated  that  he  was  much  exhausted,  and  re- 
quested an  adjournment. 

Dr.  Beecher  gave  notice  that  he  might  have  occasion  to 
introduce  further  testimony,  should  he  be  able  to  procure  it, 
before  proceeding  to  the  defence. 

Presbytery  then  took  up  other  business  before  them,  and 
which  occupied  the  judicatory  until  the  hour  of  adjournment. 

Presbytery  then  adjourned. 


Thursday  Morning. 

Presbytery  met,  and  was  opened  with  prayer. 

Further  testimony  was  introduced  on  the  part  of  Dr. 
Beecher. 

Dr.  Wilson  said  that  he  wished  to  apprize  the  Presbytery 
of  a  difficulty  which  must  arise  from  their  having  rejected  the 
information  he  had  been  desirous  of  laying  before  them,  and 
which  was  contained  in  a  letter  not  permitted  to  be  read.  If 
the  present  trial  should  not  terminate  according  to  the  views 


108  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

of  the  prosecutor,  and  the  case  should  go  up  to  the  Synod,  it 
would  be  necessary  for  him  to  obtain  from  Synod  an  attested 
copy  of  their  decision  in  the  case,  "which  would  be  attended 
with  great  delay.  But,  if  this  letter  should  now  be  received, 
the  delay  and  inconvenience  would  be  avoided.  It  would  be 
remembered  that  there  was  an  express  rule,  which  admits  the 
oflfering  of  new  testimony  before  a  superior  court  in  cases  of 
appeal,  where  the  court  should  deem  such  testimony  requisite 
to  a  right  decision. 

Mr.  Brainerd  observed  there  need  be  no  difficulty,  as  Dr. 
Wilson  could  get  from  the  Synod  all  he  had  need  of. 

Dr.  Wilson  said  that  the  writer  of  the  letter  was  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Phillips,  of  New  York ;  and  that  he  should  have  cited 
him  as  a  witness  upon  the  present  trial,  if  he  had  not  under- 
stood that  the  citation  of  all  witnesses,  save  the  members  of 
the  court,  was  by  agreement  waived. 

Mr.  Brainerd  said,  that  nothing  of  this  sort  had  been 
stated  before  the  Presbytery. 

Dr.  Wilson  then  observed,  that  as  there  appeared  to  be 
Bome  mistake  as  to  the  extent  of  Dr.  Beecher's  concessions, 
he  wanted  to  know  whether  the  fourth  specification  of  the 
sixth  charge  was  conceded,  or  not. 

Dr.  Beecher  replied  that  all  was  conceded  which  was 
contained  in  the  sermon  referred  to. 

Dr.  Wilson  then  inquired,  if  the  fact  in  that  specification 
was  not  conceded,  whether  he  had  not  a  right  to  the  testimony 
which  he  had  cited  to  support  it ;  and  whether  the  cause  must 
not  be  suspended  till  such  testimony  was  obtained.  He  was 
resolved  to  have  that  testimony  before  he  proceeded  any 
further. 

Dr.  Beecher  wished  to  know,  whether,  supposing  that 
specification  to  be  proved,  Dr.  Wilson  meant  to  avail  himself 


TRIAL    BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  109 

of  it  with  a  view  to  show  that  the  sermon  in  question  had  been 
written  and  shaped  in  reference  to  Dr.  Beecher's  coming  into 
the  Presbyterian  church.  The  date  of  the  sermon  would 
speak  for  itself,  without  any  concession.  If  Dr.  Wilson 
wanted  to  know  whether  the  sermon  was  printed  at  the  time 
Dr.  Beecher  was  about  coming  into  the  Presbyterian  church, 
there  was  no  secret  about  the  matter.  But  if  he  wanted  it  to 
be  conceded  that  the  sermon  was  either  prepared  or  published 
with  reference  to  Dr.  Beecher's  coming  to  this  place  and  being 
the  President  of  Lane  Seminary,  that  would  not  be  conceded. 
Dr.  Wilson  might  argue  from  the  date  of  the  sermon  in  any 
way  he  pleased. 

Dr.  Wilson  said,  all  he  wanted  was  the  fact,  that  he 
might  use  it  in  argument.  If  Dr.  Beecher  conceded  the  fact, 
Dr.  Wilson  would  have  the  right  to  draw  such  inference  from 
it  as  he  might  deem  projoer. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  You  may  draw  it.  As  to  the  fact,  it  is 
conceded. 

The  concession  was,  by  Dr.  "Wilson's  desire,  put  upon 
record. 

Dr.  Beecher  now  called  for  the  testimony  of  Edward 
Weed. 

Dr.  Wilson  inquired  whether  Mr.  Weed  was  a  member  of 
the  church. 

The  Moderator  replied  that  he  was  an  elder  of  the  Fourth 
church  in  Cincinnati,  and  a  candidate  under  the  care  of  the 
Cliillicothe  Presbytery. 

Mr.  Weed  was  thereupon  duly  sworn  ;  and  his  testimony, 
being  taken,  was  as  follows  : 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  How  long  was  you  a  member  of  the  Lane 
Seminary  ? 

Ansiver.  —  Two  years  and  a  half. 

VOL.  III.  10 


110  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

Dr.  Bebcher.  —  How  long  a  member  of  the  Theological 
Class? 

Ans.  —  One  year. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Was  there,  during  your  continuance  in  the 
seminary,  to  your  knowledge,  any  member  who  was  a  Per- 
fectionist 1 

Ans.  —  I  knew  of  none. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Was  there  any  whom  you  regarded  as 
tending  to  that  opinion  7 

A71S.  —  None. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Did  you,  while  a  member  of  that  seminary, 
see  a  letter  addressed  to  T.  D.  Weld,  in  the  Pej^fectionist  7 

Ans.  —  I  saw  it  in  the  city.  [Weed  resided  on  Walnut 
Hills,  at  the  Seminary.] 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Who  was  the  writer  of  that  letter  7 

Ans.  —  I  cannot  say. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Do  you  know  why  Dr.  Beecher  warned 
the  students  against  Perfectionism,  and  delivered  a  set  lec- 
ture on  that  subject? 

Ans.  —  I  think  I  know.  I  think  that,  in  one  of  the 
lectures  of  Dr.  Beecher,  the  discussion  came  up,  whether  an 
individual  could,  at  the  same  time,  be  under  the  exercise  of 
religious  feeling  and  commit  sin. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  What  arguments  were  advanced  by  some 
of  the  students  in  favor  of  the  doctrine,  that,  while  under 
religious  feeling.  Christians  cannot  commit  sin  ? 

Ans.  — The  discussion  was  simply  in  the  form  of  questions 
and  answers ;  and  it  was  argued  on  the  part  of  the  students, 
in  this  discussion,  that  an  individual's  feehngs  were,  at  the 
same  time,  entirely  holy  or  entirely  sinful. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Did  every  student  profess  to  express  his 
own  opinion  on  those  subjects  ? 


TRIAL   BY   PRESBYTERY.  Ill 

Ans.  —  No.  They  simply  argued  on  that  side  of  the 
question,  in  order  to  elicit  Dr.  Beecher's  opinion. 

Dr.  Beech ER.  —  Was  it  in  immediate  connection  with  this 
discussion  (perhaps  at  the  next  lecture)  that  I  gave  a 
regular  discussion  of  this  subject  ? 

Ans.  —  I  think  it  was  the  next  lecture, —  he  explained 
the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans  to  the  class. 

Dr.  Beeciier.  —  Was  it  in  opposition  to  the  views  of  the 
Perfectionists  7 

Ans.  —  It  was  in  opposition  to  the  theory  that  the  Chris- 
tian's feelings  are  entirely  holy  or  entirely  sinful.  It  had  not 
special  reference  to  the  Perfectionists. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Did  any  student  express  it  as  his  opinion 
in  any  other  form  than  to  elici*  opinions  from  me  ? 

Ans.  —  No,  not  in  the  discussion. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Did  every  student  express  it  as  his  opinion 
in  any  other  place,  in  their  intercourse  with  their  fellow- 
students  ? 

Ans.  —  There  were  many  students  who  expressed  their 
opinion  that  each  moral  feeling  is  entirely  holy  or  entirely 
sinful,  but  not  an  individual  who  believed  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Perfectionists. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Were  there  any  of  the  students  who 
believed  that  any  person  in  this  life  attained  to  that  state 
where  they  had  only  holy  affections,  and  none  sinful  7 

Ans.  —  Not  an  individual ;  they  all  discarded  it. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Did  their  sense  of  their  own  depravity 
correspond  with  that  of  other  Christians  in  their  convei-sation 
and  confessions  of  sin  in  prayer  ? 

Ans.  —  Yes. 

Mr.  Brainerd.  —  Did  you  ever  hear   that  Dr.  Beecher 


112  VIEWS  OP  THEOLOGY. 

was  suspected  of  Perfectionism,  until  you  heard  it  from  Dr. 
Wilson's  charges  7 

Ans.  —  I  never  heard,  until  yesterday,  that  Dr.  Beecher 
was  charged  or  suspected  of  Perfectionism.     [Read,  &c.] 

Dr.  Wilson  then  addressed  the  court  as  follows  : 

Moderator :  The  important  and  blessed  ends  of  Church 
government  and  discipline  can  only  be  attained  by  a  wise  and 
faithful  administration.  In  the  hand  of  Church  officers  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  placed  the  government  of  his  kingdom 
on  earth :  and  I  can  conceive  of  no  station  more  responsible 
than  that  occupied  by  those  officers  to  whom  are  committed 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  — to  open  that  kingdom  to 
the  penitent ;  to  shut  it  against  the  impenitent ;  to  vindicate 
the  truth  and  the  honor  of  Christ ;  to  purge  out  that  unholy 
leaven  of  error  which  might  infect  the  whole  lump  ;  to  deter 
men  from  the  commission  of  offences,  and  prevent  the  wrath 
of  God  from  falling  on  the  church.* 

It  belongs  to  the  officers  of  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord,  when 
solemnly  convened  as  a  court  of  Christ,  ministerially  and 
authoritatively  to  determine  not  only  cases  of  conscience  and 
matters  of  practice,  but  to  decide  controversies  of  faith.;  and 
their  decisions,  if  consonant  to  the  word  of  God,  are  to  be 
received  with  reverence  and  submission.! 

Of  all  the  subjects  brought  before  a  Church  court  for 
adjudication,  none  are  so  important  as  controversies  of  faith, 
and  none  so  difficult  to  determine.  None  so  important, 
because  truth  is  essential  to  purity,  peace,  and  goodness ;  and 
no  crime,  of  a  pardonable  nature,  is  so  great  as  that  of  cor- 
rupting the  word  of  God,  so  as  to  preach  another  Gospel. 
No  adjudications  are  more  difficult,  because,  under  the  ap- 

*  Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  xxx.  p.  129.  t  Ibid.  p.  132. 


TRIAL   BY   PRESBYTERY.  113 

pearance  of  piety,  zeal,  and  liberality,  —  by  popular  talent 
and  the  arts  of  persuasion,  by  the  concealing  of  the  poison 
of  asps  under  the  pure  milk  and  meat  of  some  salutary 
truths,  and  by  an  appeal  to  numbers  and  wealth  and 
success, —  false  teachers,  if  it  were  possible,  would  deceive 
the  very  elect.*  The  whole  history  of  the  Church  proves 
that  no  crime  ever  committed  has  been  so  complicated,  so 
hard  to  be  detected,  so  difficult  of  eradication,  so  hurtful  to 
the  Church,  so  ruinous  to  the  world,  as  the  preaching  of 
another  gospel.  And,  Sir,  no  class  of  men  has  ever  pos- 
sessed more  talent,  manifested  more  zeal,  exhibited  more 
perseverance,  or  exerted  greater  numerical  and  pecuniary 
power,  or  gained  a  more  elevated  popular  applause,  than 
some  false  teachers.  And  this,  we  have  reason  to  believe, 
will  continue  to  be  the  case  till  "  the  day  of  the  Lord  cometh 
that  shall  burn  as  an  oven,"  till  "  the  sons  of  Levi  shall  be 
purified,"  "  the  sanctuary  of  God  cleansed,"  and  "  the  king- 
dom, and  the  greatness  of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole 
heaven,  shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most 
High."  Were  it  necessary,  before  an  enlightened  court  of 
Christ,  to  support  these  statements  by  proof  and  illustration, 
I  might  cite  to  you  the  state  of  the  Church  in  the  time  of^ 
Jeroboam,  in  the  days  of  Ahab,  and  the  period  which  elapsed 
between  the  reign  of  Josiah  and  the  eleventh  year  of  Zede- 
kiah.  I  might  remind  you  of  those  who  compassed  sea  and 
land  to  make  a  proselyte,  in  the  time  of  Christ ;  of  those  who 
called  the  apostles  and  elders  from  their  fields  of  labor  to 
determine  a  controversy  about  doctrine,  commenced  at  An- 
tioch  and  adjudicated  at  Jerusalem.  I  might  tell  the  long 
and   melancholy  stories   of  Arius,    Pelagius,    Socinus,    and 

*  Matthew  24  :  24. 

VOL.  in.  10* 


114  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

Arminius  :  I  might  speak  of  the  powerful  but  perverted 
talents  of  the  great  Erasmus,  and  notice  the  dazzling  splen- 
dor of  Edward  Irving  :  I  might  name  men  in  our  own  times, 
in  our  own  Church,  whose  eloquence  and  popularity  have 
deluded  thousands,  and  turned  them  aside  from  the  truth  and 
simplicity  of  the  Gospel.  But  I  forbear,  and  only  add,  that 
the  case  before  you  is  a  case  precisely  in  point.  You  are 
called  upon  to  determine  a  controversy  about  doctrines ;  — 
doctrines  intimately  connected  with  practice ;  doctrines  of 
vital  interest  to  the  Church  of  Christ ;  doctrines  which  are 
parts  of  a  system  wholly  subversive  of  the  Gospel  of  God ; 
doctrines  which  have  been  propagated  with  a  zeal  and  talent 
worthy  of  a  better  cause,  and  the  propagation  of  which  has 
deeply  convulsed  and  shaken  into  disunion  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Mis- 
souri, and  from  the  lakes  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

And  now,  Sir,  permit  me  to  remind  you,  while  sitting  as  a 
court  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  there  are  several  things  which 
stand  as  prominent  obstacles  in  the  way  of  a  just  decision ; 
and  these  I  must  be  permitted  to  remove,  before  it  will  be 
possible  for  you  to  make  a  decision  in  accordance  with  the 
standards  of  the  Church  : 

1.  The  character  of  the  accuser  in  this  prosecution  stands 
as  one,  and  the  first,  obstacle  in  the  way  of  a  correct  decision. 
The  accuser,  in  this  prosecution,  is  considered  by  many  as  a 
litigious,  ultra  partisan  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  In 
attempting  to  wipe  away  this  odium,  he  puts  in  no  plea  of 
personal  merit.  He  feels  himself  to  be  a  man  of  like  passions 
with  others ;  and,  when  he  has  felt  deeply,  his  language  has 
been  plain,  and  has  strongly  expressed  the  feelings  of  his 
heart.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  opinions  formed  of  his 
merit  or  demerit,  these  opinions  ought  to  have  no  place  in  the 


TRIAL   BY   PRESBYTERY.  115 

trial.  Yet  your  records  contain  matter  going  to  show  thai 
documents  had  been  received  by  the  court  which  were  in- 
tended to  prove  the  ecclesiastical  incompetency  of  the  prose- 
cutor. Whether  those  documents  have  been  placed  upon 
your  files;  whether  they  are  anonymous,  or  over  respons- 
ible names  ;  whether  they  are  so  placed  that  they  will  be 
come-at-able  in  case  of  need, —  are  matters  not  for  me  to 
decide.  The  very  record  itself,  in  respect  to  these  papers,  is 
so  equivocal  in  its  terms,  that  no  future  historian  will,  from 
inspecting  it,  be  able  to  tell  whether  the  charges  have  been 
taken  up  by  Presbytery  on  the  ground  that  the  accuser  is  com- 
petent, or  from  mere  courtesy  to  the  feelings  of  the  accused. 
The  supposition  that  the  admission  of  the  charges  has  been 
purely  gratuitous,  and  that  they  have  been  acted  upon  out  of 
mere  courtesy  to  the  accused,  places  an  obstacle  in  the  course 
of  justice.  How  far  it  will  be  permitted  to  operate,  I  pre- 
tend not  to  say ;  but  I  do  believe  that  that  will  be  the  impres- 
sion produced,  because  I  know  something  of  impressions 
made  upon  the  human  mind.  I  feel  persuaded  that  neither 
rashness  nor  unkindness  has  appeared  either  in  the  charges 
themselves  or  in  the  manner  of  conducting  them.  Whatever 
may  have  been  my  youthful  indiscretions,  or  whatever  may 
have  been  the  spirit  I  have  manifested  when  again  and  again 
placed  at  your  bar,  I  think  I  may  appeal  to  you.  Sir,  and  to 
every  member  of  this  court,  to  say  whether,  in  the  course  of 
the  present  trial  thus  far,  it  has  not  been  conducted,  on  my 
part,  with  that  temper,  and  in  that  manner,  which  becomes 
one  standing  in  the  important  station  which  I  occupy.  I 
have  manifested  no  impatience  under  much  needless  delay  ;  I 
have  treated  the  court  with  due  deference,  and  the  man 
whose  theological  sentiments  I  cannot  approve  with  uniform 
respect  and  courtesy.     I  feel  confident,  therefore,  that  when 


116  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

the  subject  shall  be  viewed  in  all  its  parts,  the  obstacle  which 
arises  from  the  character  of  the  accuser  will  be  removed,  and 
you  will  approach  the  decision  of  the  cause,  in  that  respect  at 
least,  with  an  unbiased  mind. 

2.  A  second  obstacle  in  the  way  of  a  just  decision  of  this 
trial  is  found  in  the  character,  standing  and  talents,  of  the 
accused.  Were  the  accused  a  man  isolated  in  society,  of  but 
moderate  talents,  low  attainments,  and  of  bad  moralcharacter, 
there  would  be  little,  perhaps  no  difl&culty,  in  obtaining  a 
decision  against  him  ;  but  the  very  reverse  of  all  this  is  true. 
And  it  is  also  true,  as  has  been  strenuously  pleaded  before 
you  (with  what  effect  I  know  not),  that  Dr.  Beecher,  by  a 
long  hfe  of  correct  conduct,  and  by  the  diligent  promulgation 
of  what  he  believes  to  be  religious  truth,  has  acquired  a  large 
capital  in  character  and  reputation,  on  which  it  has  been  sup- 
posed that  he  could  live  in  the  West,  notwithstanding  all 
opposition.  While  all  this  is  not  denied,  and  while  it  is 
freely  admitted  that  his  efforts,  especially  in  the  temperance 
cause,  have  been  such  as  to  secure  him  not  only  admiration 
at  home,  but  fame  in  both  hemispheres,  and  throughout  the 
world, —  yet  it  is  believed  to  be  very  questionable  whether  he 
has  been  able  to  import  with  him  here  all  that  amount  of 
capital  in  established  character  which  he  possessed  before 
crossing  the  Appalachian.  On  this  point,  I  shall  refer  the 
court  to  what  was  written  in  New  England  touching  the 
manner  of  his  acquiring  this  capital,  and  also  showing  the 
loss  of  much  of  it  before  he  took  his  stand  among  us  of  the 
West ;  thereby  proving  that  the  loss  he  has  sustained  was 
not  owing  to  the  opposition  he  has  had  to  encounter  on  this 
side  the  mountains,  but  was  incurred  in  the  land  from  which 
he  emigrated.  I  shall  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Pres- 
bytery to  two  short  passages  in  a  book  entitled,  "  Letters  on 


TRIAL   BY   PRESBYTERY.  117 

the  Present  State  and  Probable  Results  of  Theological  Specu-     ^ 
lations  in  Connecticut." 

Mr.  Brainerd  inquired  who  was  the  author  of  the 
letters. 

Dr.  Wilson  stated,  in  reply,  that  they  appeared  under 
the  signature  of  ''  An  Edwardean,"  and  contended  that  they 
were  to  be  received  on  the  same  footing  as  the  papers  sub- 
mitted .by  Dr.  Bcechcr  at  the  last  meeting  of  Presbytery. 

Mr.  Brainerd  thought  not ;  those  papers  had  been 
signed  with  the  initials  J.  L.  W.,  understood  to  mean  Joshua 
L.  Wilson. 

Dr.  Wilson  replied,  that  he  introduced  these  extracts  in 
order  to  show  how  the  views  expressed  in  the  letters  of  Dr. 
Beecher  and  Dr.  Woods  were  viewed  in  New  England,  before 
Dr.  Beecher  left  that  country ;  and  if  they  were  not  evidence 
of  that  fxct,  then  there  was  no  such  thing  as  evidence  of  any- 
thing. If  he  was  to  be  prohibited  from  referring  to  such 
proofs,  then  he  might  give  up  at  once  all  expectation  of  being 
allowed  to  argue  the  present  question. 

Mr.  Brainerd  said,  that  if  the  letters  were  read  as 
anonymous,  and  were  introduced  merely  as  a  part  of  Dr. 
Wilson's  argument,  he  had  no  objections  to  their  being  read. 

Dr.  Beecher  wished  to  know  what  the  accuser  intended 
to  prove  by  these  extracts.  How  did  they  bear  on  the 
matter  in  hand  ? 

Dr.  Wilson  replied,  that  he  introduced  them  to  prove 
that  Dr.  Beecher  had  not  brought  all  that  amount  of  capital 
into  the  West  which  he  had  alleged,  and  which  he  repre- 
sented Dr.  Wilson  as  the  instrument  of  curtailing. 

Dr.  Beecher  replied,  he  was  perfectly  willing  that  the 
extracts  should  be  read ;  because  he  was  not  willing  it  should 
be  supposed  he  was  afraid  of  having  this,  or  anything  else 


118  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

that  could  be  produced,  read  before  the  whole  world;  but 
he  believed  the  admission  of  them  to  be  wholly  irregular. 
Neither  Dr.  Wilson  nor  himself  was  here  to  be  tried  on  the 
point  whether  Dr.  Beecher  did  or  did  not  bring  with  him 
into  the  West  the  whole  of  the  capital  he  had  possessed  in  the 
East.  What  if  he  did  ?  or  what  if  he  did  not  1  The  thing 
was  wholly  outre.  Yet  he  desired  Dr.  Wilson  might  be 
indulged  to  read  it :  he  must  take  the  liberty,  however,  of 
saying  that  it  was  wholly  irrelevant  to  the  trial. 

The  Moderator  thought  the  reading  had  better  be  allowed : 
Dr.  Beecher  would  have  an  opportunity  of  speaking  of  its 
irrelevancy  when  his  defence  was  in  order. 

Dr.  Wilson  replied,  that  he  wished  to  introduce  nothing 
irrelevant ;  nor  should  he  have  ever  thought  of  reading  from 
this  book,  had  not  Dr.  Beecher  attempted  to  produce  an  im- 
pression to  Dr.  Wilson's  disadvantage  and  his  own  elevation. 
The  book  seemed  to  be  written  not  only  with  good  judgment, 
but  by  a  man  who  possessed  a  Christian  spirit.  In  ani- 
madverting on  a  letter  of  Dr.  Beecher  to  Dr.  Woods,  of  An- 
dover,  the  author  first  quoted  the  words  of  the  letter,  and 
then  used  the  following  language  in  relation  to  it : 

Dr.  Beecher  "  has  had  the  deliberate  opinion,  for  many  years,  derived 
from  extensive  observation,  and  a  careful  attention  to  the  elementary 
principles  of  the  various  differences  which  have  agitated  the  Church,  that 
the  ministers  of  the  Orthodox  Congregational  Church,  and  the  ministers  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  are  all  cordially  united  in  every  one  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Bible,  and  of  the  Confessions  of  Faith,  which  have  been 
regarded  and  denominated  fundamental."  (See  his  second  letter  to  Dr. 
Woods.)  How  much  to  be  lamented  is  it  that  Dr.  Beecher  did  not  make 
this  discovery  in  season,  or  that  he  did  not  seasonably  feel  its  influence,  to 
have  saved  unbroken  the  harmony  of  his  native  state,  and  the  peace  of  the 
surroimding  region  !  For,  whence  came  those  charges  of  physical  de- 
pravity, and  physical  regeneration,  and  of  making  God  the  author  of 
sin,  which  certainly  did  not  arise  without  his  knowledge,  and  which  have 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  119 

grieved  his  brethren  for  years  ?  Whence  came  that  labored  effort,  a  few 
years  since,  to  make  a  new  creed  or  confession  of  faith  for  the  state  ?  who 
introduced  it  to  the  General  Association,  or  advised  to  that  measure,  to 
the  grief  and  agitation  of  many  minds,  if,  as  Dr.  Beecher  supposes,  we  are 
all  cordially  agreed  in  every  one  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  ?  Again,  Dr. 
Beecher  "  doubts  not  that  we  might  so  live  as  to  leave  the  church  in  a 
blaze  of  controversy,  which  the  generation  to  come  might  not  live  to  see 
extinguished."  And  what,  I  ask,  has  prevented  the  blaze  of  controversy, 
for  ten  years  past,  but  the  forbearance  of  those  who,  though  assailed  on 
every  side,  have  chosen  to  make  almost  any  sacrifice  for  peace  ?  And  what 
now  prevents  a  blaze  of  controversy,  that  many  generations  will  not  see 
extinguished,  unless  those  who  adhere  to  the  faith  of  their  fathers  are 
willing  to  see  themselves,  and  what  they  esteem  the  truth,  trampled  in  the 
dust  ?  Let  Dr.  Beecher  view  the  subject  on  all  sides.  But  he  has  at 
length  made  the  discovery  that  there  is  a  great  difference,  in  *'  the  eye  of 
Heaven,  in  the  eye  of  man,  and  in  our  own  eye,  on  a  death-bed,  and  on 
the  record  of  eternity,  between  the  appearance  of  a  great  pacification,  or  a 
great  conflagration,  achieved  by  our  instrumentality."  He  is  certainly  to 
be  congratulated  on  this  discovery,  and  had  he  made  it  ten  years  ago  the 
present  agitations  would  not  have  been  witnessed.  But  it  is  matter  of  joy 
that  the  discovery  has  been  made,  and  it  is  devoutly  to  be  hoped  the  effects 
will  soon  be  visible.  Let  Dr.  Beecher,  then,  use  his  influence  to  remove 
the  present  causes  of  irritation  and  suspicion.  Let  us  have  men  at  the 
head  of  our  Theological  Seminary  in  whom  all  the  churches  and  ministers 
have  confidence  ;  and  thus  give  us  back,  as  an  united  community,  our 
college,  our  Christian  Spectator,  our  candidates  for  the  ministry,  our 
revivals  of  religion,  our  harmonious  associations,  our  united  churches. 
But  if  this  cannot  be  done,  let  not  Dr.  Beecher,  or  any  other  man,  sup- 
pose that  the  Christian  community  will  always  be  amused  with  mere 
sound,  or  that  the  cause  of  truth  will  be  sacrificed  to  the  interests  or 
caprice  of  a  few  men.  —  pp.  32,  38. 

Another  consideration  is  derived  from  the  letters  recently  published  by 
Dr.  Beecher  to  Dr.  Woods.  These  letters  contain  some  pathetic  remarks  on 
the  benefits  of  union,  and  the  evils  of  alienation.  But  these  remarks  from 
Dr.  Beecher  come  too  late  in  the  day,  and  they  imply  an  incorrect  view 
of  the  subject.  They  imply  that  the  divisions  and  alienations  are  occa- 
sioned by  the  opponents  of  Dr.  Taylor,  whereas  they  are  chargeable  wholly 
to  his  friends  and  liimself  It  is  presumed  that  some  transactions,  which 
took  place  ten  years  ago,  are  not  now  present  to  Dr  Beecher's  recollection. 


120  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

The  days  and  nights  he  has  spent  with  Dr.  Taylor,  in  maturing  and  bring- 
ing forward  this  very  system,  which  makes  all  the  disturbance,  and  the 
warnings  they  then  received  from  an  intimate  friend,  who  was  sometimes 
present,  and  who  pointed  out  to  them  these  very  consequences,  have  proba- 
bly passed,  in  some  degree,  into  oblivion.  There  is  no  doubt,  that  if  Dr. 
Beecher  would  even  now  set  himself  to  undo  what  by  his  countenance  he 
has  done  in  this  matter,  the  breach  would,  in  a  great  measure,  be  healed. 
But  for  him  now  tx)  write  letters  on  the  benefits  or  duty  of  union,  though 
very  full  of  feeling,  will  not  reach  the  case.  Some  example  with  precept 
is  needful.  And  especially  let  him  not  attempt  now  to  cast  the  odium  of  , 
this  separation  on  those  who  have  done  nothing  to  produce  it,  and  who 
have,  from  the  beginning,  deprecated  its  existence  ;  those  who  have  kept 
straight  forward  in  the  doctrines,  in  which  they  have  always  found  conso- 
lation, and  by  which  they  would  administer  it  to  others.  — pp.  43,  44. 

Dr.  Wilson  said,  that  after  reading  this  he  Avould  only 
remark  that  the  date  here  given  corresponded  exactly  with 
the  period  mentioned  by  Dr.  Beecher  himself,  in  which  he 
had  been  engaged  in  preaching  and  publishing  the  doctrines 
he  now  held.  That  period  he  stated  to  have  been  the  last 
ten  years ;  and  it  was  within  just  that  period,  according  to 
this  writer,  that  the  troubles  and  disturbances  of  the  churches 
of  New  England- on  the  subject  of  the  new  Divinity  had  been 
experienced.  This  coincidence  of  date  gave  the  more  authen- 
ticity to  the  statements  of  the  Edwardean. 

Dr.  Wilson  now  proceeded  to  read  from  a  printed  ''  Letter 
to  Dr.  Beecher,  on  the  Influence  of  his  Ministry  in  Boston : 
by  Rev.  Asa  Rand,  Editor  of  the  Volunteer f^  as  follows: 

The-  object  which  I  aim  to  accomplish  is,  either  to  elicit  something  from 
yourself  or  your  friends  which  may  remove  injurious  perplexities  ;  or,  if 
these  must  remain  on  your  part,  to  disabuse  the  public  mind  of  prevaihng 
misapprehensions,  and  so  arrest  or  retard,  if  it  may  be,  the  progress  of 
existing  evils.  I  say  disabuse  the  public  mind  ;  for  although  there  are 
many  who  probably  understand  and  follow  you,  and  many  others  who 
regard  your  course  as  inconsistent  and  erroneous,  yet  there  are  multitudes 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  121 

in  our  churches  who  do  not,  for  lack  of  information,  understand  this  sub- 
ject, even  so  far  as  it  is  intelligible  to  others.  They  have  been  accustomed 
to  listen  to  you  almost  as  to  an  oracle.  They  have  heard  from  you  and 
of  you  things  which  startle  them.  But  they  have  heard  of  your  disclaim- 
ers, and  your  abundant  professions  of  orthodoxy  ;  and  they  dispose  of  their 
perplexities  as  they  are  able.  Some  stand  in  doubt  of  you  ;  but  hope  and 
believe  all  things.  Othei-s  believe  your  professions,  and  impute  your  seem- 
ing vagaries  to  the  eccentricities  of  your  mind  and  the  warmth  of  your 
preaching.  —  pp.  4,  5. 

The  novelties  to  which  I  refer  in  this  letter  are  those  which  have  been 
called  "new  Divinity,"  and  "new  measures."  I  mean  the  theology  of 
the  New  Haven  school,  and  the  measures  for  converting  sinners  and  pro- 
moting revivals,  which  have  had  their  principal  seat  of  operation  in  the 
State  of  New  York.  It  is  no  part  of  my  object,  —  it  would  lead  me  too  far 
out  of  the  way,  —  to  prove  these  principles  and  measures  to  be  unscriptural, 
or  even  to  show,  at  any  considerable  length,  what  they  are.  That  they 
exist,  is,  I  believe,  granted  on  every  side.  That  their  advocates  believe 
them  to  be  widely  different  from  old  principles  and  measures,  and  also  to 
be  exceedingly  preferable  to  them,  is  manifest,  from  the  fact  that  they  con- 
tinually inculcate  and  extol  the  new,  and  expressly  undervalue  the  old  ; 
from  the  fact  that  they  pertinaciously  adhere  to  their  alleged  improve- 
ments, although  they  know  they  are  unacceptable  to  a  large  portion  of  their 
brethren,  and  have  excited  animosities  and  divisions  ;  and  from  the  fact 
that  they  seize  every  occasion  to  diffuse  their  principles,  and  to  introduce 
men  who  preach  them,  at  every  open  door.  My  complaint  against  you,  sir, 
is,  that  you  have  acted  fully  with  other  leaders  in  this  matter,  but  not  with 
that  open  avowal  of  your  object  which  was  to  be  expected  from  your  gen- 
eral reputation  for  frankness,  and  from  your  Christian  profession. 

Of  this  new  scheme  of  doctrine,  which  I  have  said  I  cannot  stay  to 
exhibit  at  length,  it  is  requisite  I  should  give  a  synopsis.  Perhaps  I  can- 
not better  characterize  it,  in  a  few  words,  than  by  saying  that  it  resembles, 
in  its  prominent  features  and  bearing,  Wcsleyanism ;  a  strange  mingling 
of  evangelical  doctrine  Avith  Arminian  speculations  ;  a  system,  if  such  it 
may  be  called,  which  the  orthodox  of  New  England  have  long  believed  to 
be  subversive  of  the  Gospel,  and  tending  to  produce  spurious  conversions. 
It  certainly  has  some  variations  from  that  system,  however,  which  I  need 
not  point  out.  It  professedly  embraces  the  atonement,  the  Deity  of  Christ, 
the  Trinity,  the  personality  and  offices  of  the  Spirit,  depravity,  regenera- 
tion, justification,  and  the  other  doctrines  of  grace.  Its  distinctive  feature 
VOL.  III.  11 


122  VIEWS   or  THEOLOGY. 

is,  that  it  abundantly  inculcates  human  activity  and  ability  in  the  aflfair  of 
salvation  ;  even  professing  to  resuscitate  them  from  the  dead,  alleging  that 
we  have  heretofore  killed  and  buried  them.  Holding  that  sumers,  though 
depraved,  have  power  to  convert  themselves,  it  proposes  the  minute  and 
direct  steps  hj  which  they  may  effect  it,  content  with  a  general  allusion, 
now  and  then,  to  the  necessity  of  a  Divine  influence  to  aid  and  persuade 
them.  —  pp.  5,  6. 

Apparently  induced  by  their  wish  to  present  the  ability  and  obligation 
of  sinners  in  the  strongest  light,  and  to  convert  them  as  fast  as  possible  by 
every  means,  the  preachers  in  question  have  renewed  the  attempt  which 
has  been  a  thousand  times  baffled  before,  —  an  attempt  to  make  the  hum- 
bling doctrines  of  the  Gospel  plain  and  acceptable  to  the  carnal  mind. 
Original  sin  is  explained  away.  Adult  depravity  is  resolved  into  a  habit 
of  sinning,  and  the  various  ruling  passions  ;  while  the  deep,  fixed,  inherent 
aversion  of  the  soul  to  God  and  all  holiness  is  kept  out  of  sight.  Elec- 
tion, the  sovereignty  of  God,  the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  renovat- 
ing the  heart,  are  so  explained  that  the  "  natural  man  "  can  understand 
them,  and  be  reconciled  to  them  besides. 

Yourself  and  the  public  will  expect  to  know  my  reasons  for  regarding 
you  as  connected  with  the  New  Haven  school,  and  a  leading  advocate  of 
their  theology.     I  will  now  attempt  to  give  them. 

1.  Your  preaching,  together  with  your  treatment  of  inquirers  and  con- 
verts. And,  when  I  speak  of  this  character  of  your  sermons  and  addresses, 
I  do  not  intend  "an  occasional  sentence  or  expression  ;  but  the  prevailing 
tone  of  sentiment,  on  frequent  occa'sions,  among  your  own  people,  to  other 
congregations  in  the  city,  and  at  numerous  opportunities  abroad. 

I  cannot,  however,  refer  to  chapter  and  verse,  or  quote  your  language 
verbatim.  You  have  seldom  put  your  new  theology  to  the  press,  though 
you  have  published  much  on  various  topics.  Whether  the  omission  has 
been  by  design,  or  for  imperative  reasons,  I  know  not.  I  must,  therefore, 
resort  to  other  sources  of  evidence.  And  I  here  premise  that  I  do  not 
affirm  what  you  have  preached,  but  what  you  have  been  understood  to 
preach  ;  for  the  words  of  the  oral  preacher  pass  into  the  air,  and  cannot 
be  remembered  with  perfect  accuracy,  and  repeated  with  confidence.  I  only 
mean  to  say,  that  in  New  England  the  impression  is  strong  and  deep  that 
you  have  fully  preached  among  us  the  theology  above  described  ;  that, 
while  Dr.  Taylor  and  others  have  written,  and  reasoned,  and  philosophized, 
and  mysticized,  you  have  rendered  the  same  system  palpable  and  practical 
in  your  preaching  and  ministrations,  subserving  their  cause  far  more 
effectuaUy  than  they  have  done  themselves.  —  pp.  8,  9. 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  .         123 

Dr.  Wilson  said  he  had  marked  other  passages  with  the 
intent  to  read  them,  but  would  spare  the  time  of  the  court, 
and  lay  the  book  on  the  table  for  reference. 

Now,  he  wished  the  Presbytery  to  recollect  the  object  for 
which  he  had  introduced  and  read  these  printed  documents ; 
it  was  to  show  that  whatever  amount  of  capital  Dr.  Beecher 
might  have  attained,  within  the  last  ten  years,  it  had  been 
diminished,  in  no  inconsiderable  degree,  before  he  had  taken 
up  his  line  of  march  for  the  West ;  and,  therefore,  the  loss 
w^as  not  chargeable  to  the  opposition  of  Dr.  Wilson.  But, 
suppose  all  this  proof  be  laid  wholly  out  of  view,  and  suppose 
that  Dr.  Beecher  is  still  in  possession  of  the  entire  amount  of 
fame  which  can  be  the  result  of  a  long  life  devoted  to  the  pro- 
motion of  what  he  believed  the  cause  of  truth  and  benevolence, 
was  this  to  be  pleaded  in  his  favor  here  ?  Was  he  to  be  more 
exempt  from  the  judgment  of  his  peers  than  the  humblest 
individual  in  society  7  Dr.  Wilson  would  say  to  the  court, 
on  this  subject,  "Look  not  upon  his  countenance,  nor  upon 
the  height  of  his  intellectual  stature."  You  are  to  "know 
no  man  after  the  flesh."  His  talents,  fame,  and  even  his 
usefulness,  ought  not  to  be  remembered,  when  you  cast  your 
eye  upon  the  charges  now  before  you.  The  inquiries  sub-_ 
mitted  to  you  are  plain  and  important.  Has  he  published 
and  preached  prominent  and  radical  errors  ?  What  methods 
has  he  taken  to  propagate  and  render  them  popular  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  ] 

3.  A  third  obstacle,  said  Dr.  Wilson,  presented  in  the  way 
of  a  just  decision  in  this  case,  is  Dr.  Greene's  review  of  Dr. 
Beecher's  sermon  on  "The  Faith  once  delivered  to  the 
Saints."  Extracts  from  this  review  were  read  before  this 
court  at  its  last  meeting  to  prove  —  what?  —  to  prove  that  if 
the  specifications  made  under  these  charges  bo  all  true,  they 


124       '  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

form  no  proper  ground  of  complaint!  Now,  I  should  not 
have  referred  to  this  sermon,  or  to  Dr.  Greene's  review  of  it, 
had  they  not  been  brought  before  you  by  Dr.  Beecher  him- 
self I  confess  that  all  my  knowledge  of  the  sermon  is  from 
the  author's  own  statement,  from  Dr.  Greene's  review  of  it, 
and  from  the  review  in  the  Christian  Examiner,  together  with 
Dr.  Beecher's  answer  in  the  CJiristian  Sj^fcctator.  Thus,  I 
get  a  knowledge  of  sermons  I  never  read.  But  I  would  ask, 
Is  Dr.  Greene  to  be  quoted  as  good  authority  against  the 
standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  7  Dr.  Greene,  it  is  said, 
pronounced  Dr.  Beecher  a  Calvinist.  Permit  me.  Sir,  to  dis- 
abuse your  minds  on  this  subject.  Dr.  Beecher  did  not  call 
his  own  sentiments  Calvinistic.  He  called  his  sermon  ''a 
select  system  " — held  by  no  man  nor  denomination,  so  as  to 
render  it  proper  to  call  it  by  the  name  of  any  man  or  any 
sect ;  and  he  says  that  some  of  almost  every  denomination 
hold  it,  and  some  reject  it.  Dr.  Greene  gives  the  same 
account  of  Dr.  Beecher's  "select  system."  He  says  that 
Calvinists,  in  the  most  proper  sense  of  the  term,  would  except 
to  some  of  the  articles  of  this  system  ;  and  a  great  many  who 
would  by  no  means  consent  to  be  denominated  Calvinists 
would  only  consider  Dr.  Beecher  as  holding  the  evangelical 
system  substantially .  Well,  indeed,  did  Dr.  Greene  say 
that  strict  and  proper  Calvinists  would  except  to  some  of  Dr. 
Beecher's  articles  of  faith.  Look,  Sir,  at  the  following:  — 
' '  Men  are  in  the  possession  of  such  faculties,  and  placed  in 
such  circumstances,  as  render  it  practicable  for  them  to  do 
whatever  God  requires."  This  is  an  article  in  Dr.  Beecher's 
''select  system"  to  which  no  true  Calvinist,  and  but  few 
Arminians,  can  subscribe ;  for,  while  it  directly  contradicts  the 
Calvinistic  creed  on  the  one  hand,  on  the  other  it  asserts  an 
abihty  in  fallen  man  which  intelligent  Arminians  deny.     In- 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  125 

deed.  Sir,  no  man  can  assert  such  an  ability  in  fallen  man, 
■ —  much  less  can  he  make  it  the  foundation  of  divine  govern- 
ment,—  without  being  deeply  imbued  with  the  Pelagian  heresy, 
and  making  a  display  of  his  entire  ignorance  of  the  true  doc- 
trines of  the  Fall. 

In  reference  to  the  Atonement,  Dr.  Beecher  states  that 
God  can  maintain  the  influence  of  his  law,  and  forgive  sin,  on 
the  condition  of  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  and,  that  a  compliance  with  these  conditions  is 
practicable,  in  the  regular  exercise  of  the  powers  and  faculties 
given  to  man  as  an  accountable  creature.  [See  Christian 
Advocate,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  31,  32.]  Every  man  who  understands 
the  Socinian  controversy  knows  that  these  are  precisely  the 
sentiments  of  Unitarians.  Did  Dr.  Greene  say  that  Dr. 
Beecher  was  a  Calvinist  ?  No.  What  Dr.  Greene  attempts 
to  show  is,  that  Dr.  Beecher's  "select  system"  contains 
sentiments  to  which  no  strict  Calvinist,  no  strict  Arminian, 
can  subscribe ;  and  this  is  precisely  what  Dr.  Beecher  himself 
asserted  of  this  select  system.  His  words  are  these  :  ''  It  is 
a  select  system,  which  some  of  almost  every  denomination 
hold,  and  some  reject."  And  he  calls  it  evangelical,  to  pre- 
vent circumlocution.  Now,  I  claim  the  right  of  caUing  this 
"  select  system"  by  a  more  appropriate  name.  And,  as  Dr. 
Beecher  is  extremely  anxious  to  be  considered  a  Calvinist,  I 
will  call  his  select  system  Liberal  Calvinism ;  and  I  will 
adopt  the  language  of  Dr.  Greene,  and  say,  "  the  peculiar 
sentiments  of  the  class  of  Calvinists  to  which  Dr.  Beecher 
belongs  are  also  apparent  in  other  parts  of  this  discourse." 
And  what  is  liberal  Calvinism  ?  According  to  Huntington 
(I  do  not  mean  Huntington  of  London,  nor  Huntington  in 
Boston,  formerly  in  the  Old  South  church ;  but  Huntington 
the  author  of  Calvinism  Improved),  in  his  book,  entitled  Cal- 

VOL.  III.  11* 


126  VIEWS   OP  THEOLOGY. 

vinism  Improved ;  liberal  Calvinism  is  Universal  Salvation. 
According  to  Dr.  Taylor  and  Professor  Fitch ;  liberal  Calvin- 
ism is  the  adoption  of  a  Calvinistic  creed  "for  substance  of 
doctrine,"  admitting  the  primary  propositions,  and  rejecting 
the  secondary  as  unwarranted  and  obsolete  explanations. 
According  to  others,  liberal  Calvinism  is  the  stepping-stone  to 
Pelagian  perfection.  In  my  opinion,  liberal  Calvinism  is  that 
select  system  now  called  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  New- 
Schoolism.  What  did  liberal  Calvinism  do  in  Scotland  ?  It 
produced  the  moderate  party,  against  which  Dr.  Witherspoon 
wrote  his  celebrated  "Characteristics."  What  did  liberal 
Calvinism  do  in  England?  It  placed  a  Unitarian  in  the 
very  pulpit  once  occupied  by  the  venerable  Matthew  Henry. 
What  did  liberal  Calvinism  do  in  Geneva  7  It  placed  a  Neo- 
logian  in  the  very  seat  of  Calvin.  What  has  liberal  Calvin- 
ism done  in  America?  It  has  undermined  and  almost 
annihilated  the  Saybrook  Platform  in  New  England ;  it  has 
divided,  distracted,  and  almost  ruined,  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
under  the  care  of  the  General  Assembly ;  it  has  exalted  unto 
high  places  men  whose  talents  and  opinions  are  inimical  to 
the  dearest  interests  of  truth ;  it  has  palmed  upon  the  East 
and  West  and  South  such  talented  and  liberal  spirits  as  Dun- 
can, and  Fhnt,  and  Clapp  !  And  does  Dr.  Beecher  consider 
it  applause  to  be  called  a  liberal  Calvinist  ?  Yes.  Sir ;  in  this 
he  glories.  And,  in  language  which  cannot  be  mistaken,  he 
declares  that  nothing  has  done  more  to  eclipse  the  Sun  of 
Righteousness  than  "old  dead  orthodoxy."  He  tells  you 
that,  as  a  Congregationalist  in  New  England,  his  creed  was  the 
Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism,  and  the  Saybrook  Platform ; 
that,  as  a  Presbyterian,  his  creed  is  our  Confession  of  Faith ; 
and,  at  the  same  time,  he  declares  that  there  is  nothing  in 
these  charges,  on  the  subject  of  erroneous  doctrine,  but  what 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  127 

he  has  preached  and  published,  from  ten  to  twenty  years,  in 
his  '^select  system,"  which  some  of  all  sorts  believe,  and 
some  of  all  sorts  reject.  And  what  does  he  desire  you  to 
infer  from  all  this  ?  That  his  sentiments  are  in  accordance 
with  the  standards  of  the  church,  at  least,  ' '  for  substance  of 
doctrine;"  or,  if  there  be  '^ shades  of  difference,"  they  have 
been  so  long,  so  perseveringly  and  extensively  propagated, 
that  there  is  now  no  just  cause  of  complaint ;  as  if,  when  a 
man  is  arraigned  for  sapping  the  foundation  of  civil  society, 
and  introducing  misrule  in  all  the  states,  he  should  plead  in 
bar  of  the  prosecution,  or  in  mitigation  of  his  offence,  that,  as 
he  had  been  engaged  in  the  project  of  a  select  system  from 
ten  to  twenty  years,  no  one  now  had  any  right  to  complain  ! 
But,  suppose  Dr.  Greene,  in  1824,  delighted  with  the  ability 
with  which  Dr.  Beecher  defended  or  sustained  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  had,  in  kindness  and  courtesy,  overlooked  the 
errors  of  the  "select  system,"  and  pronounced  Dr.  Beecher  a 
Calvinist  in  so  many  words;  what  weight  ought  such  a 
declaration  to  have  with  you,  on  a  trial  held  eleven  years 
afterwards  7  It  ought,  Sir,  to  be  with  you  less  than  the  dust 
of  the  balance.  Could  Dr.  Greene  possibly  have  foreseen 
what  evils  would  result  from  this  "select  system"  in  ten 
years  7  And  can  any  man  now  see  the  amount  of  mischief 
which  this  "select  system"  will  produce  in  ten  years  more, 
if  the  desolating  tide  is  not  rolled  back  ? 

4.  A  fourth  obstacle  in  the  w^ay  of  a  just  decision  is  the 
claim  that  is  set  up  on  the  subject  of  interpretation.  Let 
us  see  what  this  claim  of  interpretation  is.  I  quote  from 
Dr..  Beecher' s  work,  entitled  "The  Causes  and  Remedy 
of  Scepticism." — Vide  vol.  I.  page  65. 

With  these  remarks  in  view,  I  proceed  to  observe  that  the  creeds  of  the 
Reformation  are  also  made  often  the  occasion  of  perplexity  and  doubt  to 


128  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

inexperienced  minds.  *  *  They  were  constructed  amidst  the  most 
arduous  controversy  that  ever  taxed  the  energies  of  man,  and  with  the  eye 
fixed  upon  the  errors  of  the  day,  and  on  the  points  around  which  the  battle 
chiefly  raged.  On  some  topics  they  are  more  full  than  the  proportion  of  the 
faith  now  demands  ;  some  of  their  phraseology  also,  once  familiar,  would 
now,  without  explanation,  inculcate  sentiments  which  are  not  Scriptural, 
which  the  framers  did  not  believe,  and  the  creeds  were  never  intended  to 
teach.  *  *  * 

Of  course,  they  appear  rather  as  insulated,  independent,  abstract  propo- 
sitions, tnan  as  the  symmetrical  parts  and  proportions  of  a  beautiful  and 
glorious  system  of  divine  legislation,  for  maintaining  the  laws  and  protect- 
ing the  rights  of  the  universe,  while  the  alienated  are  reconciled  and  the 
guilty  are  pardoned  ;  and  though,  as  abstract  truths  correctly  expounded 
according  to  the  intention  of  the  framers,  they  unquestionably  inculcate  the 
system  of  doctrines  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  and  though,  as  land- 
marks and  boundaries  between  truth  and  error,  they  are  truly  important ; 
yet,  as  the  means  for  the  popular  exposition  and  the  saving  application  of 
truth,  they  are  far  short  of  the  exigencies  of  the  day  in  which  we  live,  — 
mere  skeletons  of  truth,  compared  with  the  system  clothed,  and  beautified, 
and  inspired  with  life,  as  it  exists  and  operates  in  the  Word  of  God.  Un- 
happily, also,  some  of  the  most  important  truths  they  inculcate  are,  in  their 
exposition,  so  twisted  in  with  the  reigning  philosophy  of  the  day,  as  to  be  in 
the  popular  apprehension  identified  with  it ;  and  are  made  odious  and  repel- 
lant  by  its  errors,  as  if  these  philosophical  theories  were  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Bible.  There  is  no  end  to  the  mischief  which  false  philos- 
ophy, employed  in  the  exposition  and  defence  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Reformation,  has  in  this  manner  accomplished.  Good  men  have  con- 
tended for  theories  as  if  they  were  vital  to  the  system,  and  regarded  as 
heretical  those  who  received  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  only  rejected 
their  philosophy. 

******* 

It  is  my  deliberate  opinion  that  the  false  philosophy  which  has  been 
employed  for  the  exposition  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  has  done  more  to 
obstruct  the  march  of  Christianity,  and  to  paralyze  the  saving  power  of  the 
Gospel,  and  to  raise  up  and  organize  around  the  Church  the  unnumbered 
multitude  to  behold  and  wonder,  and  despise  and  perish,  than  all  other 
causes  beside.         *  *  * 

The  points  to  which  I  allude,  as  violated  by  a  false  philosophy,  are  the 
principles  of  personal  identity,  —by  which  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  dis- 
tinct from,  and  not  to  be  confounded  with,  their  ancestor;  the  principles  of 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  129 

personal  accountability  and  desert  of  punishment,  that  men  arc  not  made 
accountable  and  punishable  for  the  conduct  of  Adam,  though  liable  to  sin 
and  misery,  as  its  universal  consequence ;  the  nature  of  sin  and  holiness, 
considered  not  as  material  qualities  or  the  substance  of  the  soul,  or  as  in- 
stincts, but  as  the  spontaneous  action  of  mind  under  moral  govei'nment, 
in  the  full  possession  of  all  the  elements  of  accountability  ;  and,  above  all, 
the  doctrines  of  the  decree  of  God,  and  the  universal  certainty  of  all  events 
to  his  foreknowledge.  To  which  may  be  added  the  nature  of  the  atonement 
and  its  extent,  and  the  doctrines  of  election  and  reprobation,  as  they  shine 
in  the  Bible,  and  not  through  the  medium  of  a  perverting  philosophy. 

Whatever  of  these  philosophical  theories  appertained  to  the  system  dur- 
ing the  arduous  conflict  for  civil  and  religious  liberty  against  the  papal 
despotism  of  modern  Europe,  men  endured,  —  even  swallowed  them  unhes- 
itatingly, almost  unthinkingly,  in  the  presence  of  a  greater  evil ;  but  since 
the  conflict  has  passed  away,  and  the  nature  of  mind  and  moral  govern- 
ment is  better  understood,  and  the  numbers  who  think  and  will  think  for 
themselves  multiply,  the  repugnance  to  this  false  philosophy  has  steadily 
increased,  and  will  increase,  till  that  which  is  adventitious  and  false  is 
relinquished,  and  the  truth  is  preached  in  its  purity  and  unbroken  power. 
—  Vide  vol.  I.,  pp.  G7,  68. 

It  seems  that  the  principle  of  interpretation  is  claimed  ; 
and  that  all  things  which  Dr.  Beecher  conceives  to  have 
been  either  twisted  in  or  left  out  where  the  Confession  is  too 
full  or  too  empty ;  and  where  it  will  not,  in  his  judgment, 
produce  those  effects  which  popular  preaching  was  designed 
to  acomplish,  must  be  stricken  out  or  explained  away.  To 
show  to  what  errors  the  interpretation  of  a  creed  may  lead, 
I  will  quote  a  few  passages  from  Edwardean. 

It  is  unusual,  in  creeds  or  confessions  of  faith,  to  adopt  terms  so  ambigu- 
ous as  to  require  an  explanation  longer  than  the  confession  itself.  The 
confessions  of  faith  used  in  our  churches  are  not  thus  dubious  ;  but  are 
sufficiently  explicit  for  all  the  purposes  of  a  confession  of  faith,  without  a 
word  of  explanation.  The  above  mystery  has  hitherto  remained  ;  and  its 
solution  is  a  matter  of  no  small  difiiculty,  because  it  leads  into  the  region 
of  motives  and  intentions,  with  which  no  stranger  can  intermeddle  to 
advantage  or  with  propriety.    But  such  is  the  fact,  whatever  may  have 


130  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

been  the  motive.  The  creed  in  general  uses  the  common  and  established 
language  of  the  Calvinistic  faith  ;  and  the  notes  so  vary  the  meaning  of 
the  terms  as  to  give  the  creed  a  different  aspect  from  that  in  which  this 
language  commonly  appears.  Taking  the  creed  and  the  notes  in  connec- 
tion, they  neutralize  each  other,  so  that  the  whole  presents  Dr.  Taylor  as 
beheving  nothing  at  all.  In  one  he  says  he  believes  a  certain  doctrine,  in 
the  other  he  denies  it.  Or,  taking  the  notes  as  the  explanation  of  the  creed, 
and  Dr.  Taylor  is  exhibited  as  sailing  under  false  colors,  so  far  as  the  creed 
is  to  be  considered  his  flag.  For  it  seems  to  mean  one  thing,  and  really 
means  another.  These  views  are  given  hypothetically,  and  from  the 
external  aspects  of  the  transaction,  for  with  the  motives  I  have  no  con- 
cern. To  obtain  a  full  view  of  this  mysterious  circumstance,  it  may  be 
expedient  to  compare  some  of  the  articles  of  this  creed  with  the  note 
appended. 

The  second  article  reads  thus  :  "  I  believe  that  the  eternal  piirposes  of 
God  extend  to  all  actual  events,  sin  not  excepted  ;  or  that  God  foreordains 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  and  so  executes  these  purposes  as  to  leave  the 
free  moral  agency  of  man  unimpaired."  This  language,  in  its  common 
acceptation,  —  and  the  meaning  has  long  been  settled  by  uniform  usage,  — 
must  be  considered  as  a  full  confession  of  the  independent  government  of 
God.  On  turning  to  the  notes,  we  find  the  following  explanation  :  "  But 
I  do  not  believe  that  sin  can  be  proved  to  be  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  good,  and  that  as  such  God  prefers  it  to  holiness  in  its  stead. 
But  I  do  believe  that  holiness,  as  the  means  of  good,  may  be  better  than 
sin,  and  that  it  may  be  true  that  God,  all  things  considered,  prefers  holi- 
ness to  sin,  in  all  instances  in  which  the  latter  takes  place."  In  the  creed 
he  says  he  believes  that  the  purposes  of  God  extend  to  all  events,  sin  not 
excepted  ;  and  that  God  foreordains  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  :  but  in  the 
notes  he  says  he  does  not  believe  it  can  be  proved  that  God  prefers  sin  to 
hohness,  as  the  means  of  good,  or  that  he  did  not  even  prefer  directly  the 
contrary.  Here,  one  of  two  things  must  be  true  :  either  Dr.  Taylor  believes 
that  God  purposed  and  foreordained  what  he  did  not  prefer,  but  the  con- 
trary of  which  he  chose  ;  or  he  (Dr.  Taylor)  believes  what  he  does  not 
believe  can  be  proved,  or  the  contrary  of  which  may  be  true.  But  why 
this  ambiguity  ?  If  Dr.  Taylor  believes  as  he  says  he  does  in  the  note, 
why  not  say  so  in  his  creed,  and  put  the  matter  at  rest  ?  Why  this  broad, 
full,  unqualified  confession  of  divine  supremacy  in  the  second  article  ;  and 
then  this  mysterious  explanation,  which  leaves  the  subject  of  his  faith 
utterly  inexplicable  ? 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  131 

In  the  third  article,  we  find  the  following  confession :  "I  believe  that 
all  mankind,  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of  Adam,  are  born  destitute  of  holi- 
ness, and  are  by  nature  totally  depraved."  No  one  can  ask  for  a  more 
full  confession  of  the  original  and  entire  depravity  of  man  than  this  lan- 
guage, according  to  long-established  usage,  conveys.  No  one,  on  reading 
this,  would  hesitate  a  moment  to  pronounce  Dr.  Taylor  orthodox  on  this 
point.  But  what  says  the  appendix  ?  '*  But  I  do  believe  that  by  the  wise 
and  holy  constitution  of  God,  all  mankind,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin, 
became  sinners  by  their  own  act."  —  pp,  6,  7. 

When  we  say  that  all  mankind  are  born  destitute  of  holiness,  have  we 
been  understood  to  mean  that  they  were  born  destitute  of  moral  character, 
neither  holy  nor  sinful,  but  in  the  same  moral  condition  with  young 
animals  ?  But  this  must  be  Dr.  Taylor's  meaning,  according  to  his  own 
explanation.  He  believes  that  men  become  sinners  by  their  own  act,  and 
that  an  act  of  self-preference.  Consequently,  to  be  born  destitute  of  holi- 
ness does  not  mean  to  be  born  sinful,  because  men  must  themselves  put 
forth  an  act  of  self-preference  before  they  are  sinners.  If  this  is  Dr. 
Taylor's  sentiment,  why  did  he  not  say  so  at  first  ?  It  was  just  as  easy  to 
have  said,  in  his  third  article,  I  believe  that  all  mankind  are  born  destitute 
of  any  moral'  character,  in  the  same  moral  condition  with  young  animals. 
This  would  have  been  explicit,  and  have  saved  all  note  and  comment. 
Again,  when  we  say  that  all  mankind  are  by  nature  totally  depraved,  what 
has  been  the  universally  received  meaning,  but  that  men  are  from  their 
birth,  as  derived  from  Adam,  possessed  of  a  sinful  propensity,  that  is  in 
itself  a  sufficient  ground  of  their  condemnation  ?  There  can  be  no  question 
that  such  has  been  always  the  import  of  this  language.  And,  without  his 
notes,  no  one  would  have  any  doubt  that  Dr.  Taylor  meant  to  be  under- 
stood in  this  sense.  But  no  such  thing.  Nothing  is  further  from  his 
iiiind.  He  means  something  totally  diverse,  namely,  that  the  physical 
nature  of  man  is  such,  that,  under  the  influence  of  circumstances,  he  will 
sin.  If  this,  then,  is  his  meaning,  why  not  say  so,  — why  this  play  upon 
words, — this  putting  on  a  borrowed  dress,  when  his  ideas  might  have 
been  just  as  easily  clothed  in  appropriate  and  intelligible  language  ?  — 
p.  8. 

You  will  probably,  by  this  time,  perceive  the  mystery  to  which  I  refer. 
It  is,  that  Dr.  Taylor  should  thus  adopt  the  decided  language  of  Calvinism 
in  his  creed,  and  explain  it  another  way  in  his  notes.  No  one  questions 
his  right  to  be  an  Arminian,  or  Pelagian,  if  he  chooses  ;  no  one  wishes  to 
vex  him  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  his  rights  of  conscience.     But  that  he 


132  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

may  sail  under  a  false  flag,  or  that  he  may  use  the  terms  of  a  particular 
creed  to  mean  directly  the  opposite  of  the  common  acceptation,  is  seriously 
questionable.  —  p.  10. 

But,  it  will  be  said,  probably,  that  the  difference  is  not  respecting  the 
doctrines  themselves,  but  merely  about  the  philosophy  of  these  doctrines, 
or  the  theory  of  explanation.  And  we  shall  be  told  that  men  may  per- 
fectly agree  in  the  facts  of  religion,  and  yet  differ  greatly  in  the  theory  of 
explanation.  This  may,  indeed,  be  true  in  some  respects,  and  to  some 
extent ;  but,  when  indiscriminately  applied,  it  contains  a  dangerous 
sophism,  which  will  subvert  every  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Take,  for  ex- 
ample, the  case  which  has  been  mentioned,  if  I  mistake  not,  by  the  author 
of  Views  in  Theology,  of  Christ's  casting  out  devils.  This  fact  was 
admitted  equally  by  the  Jews  and  the  disciples.  But  they  differed  in  their 
theory  of  explanation.  The  Jews  said  that  he  cast  out  devUs  by  Beelzebub, 
and  the  disciples  believed  that  he  cast  them  out  by  the  finger  of  God.  Was 
there  no  essential  difference  ?  Could  the  believers  in  these  different  theories 
hold  each  other  in  fellowship  ?  What  concord  hath  Christ  with  Belial  ? 
Again,  some  men  agree  in  the  fact  that  sinners  must  experience  a  moral 
change,  of  some  sort,  to  be  saved.  But  one  believes  that  the  change  is  to  be 
effected  by  his  own  desperate  efforts^  by  his  changing  his  own  purpose,  and 
transferring  his  affections  from  the  world  to  God,  under  the  influence  of 
truth  presented  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Another  believes  that  this  change  is  a 
mere  external  reformation,  and  passing  from  the  world  into  the  church. 
Another  believes  that  it  is  a  new  creation  wrought  in  the  heart  by  the 
special  and  mighty  power  of  God.  If  you  ask  either  of  these  men  whether 
he  believes  in  the  doctrine  of  regeneration,  he  will  say,  "  0  yes,  certainly." 
But  is  there  no  essential  difference  in  their  belief,  —  will  no  different 
results  proceed  from  it,  —  and  can  they  consistently  hold  each  other  in 
fellowship  ?  The  fallacy  of  this  argument  consists  in  assuming  that 
agreement  in  a  term  or  name  is  agreement  in  a  fact,  or  that  agreement  in 
some  parts  of  a  statement  is  agreement  in  the  whole.  It  assumes  that 
those  who  have  the  terms  regeneration,  total  depravity  or  special  grace,  in 
their  creeds,  are  agreed  in  the  main  facts  of  religion.  But  far  otherwise  is 
the  truth.  Difference  in  the  theory  of  explanation  in  many  cases  may 
involve  the  vital  principles  of  religion.  This  is  true  of  the  doctrine  of  free 
grace,  of  the  justification  of  men  by  faith  alone,  and  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
final  perseverance  of  behevers.  These  doctrines,  though  admitted  as  to  the 
facts,  may  be  so  explained  as  to  involve  the  subversion  of  all  moral  obliga- 
tion, and  the  admission  of  rank  Antinomianism.     And  will  this  make  no 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  133 

difference  in  the  result  ?  Ought  it  to  be  no  ground  of  separation  ?  You 
sec,  then,  that  no  confidence  can  be  placed  in  this  new  tlicological  alchemy, 
—  tliis  i)hilosoplier's  stone,  whicli  is  expecteil  to  turn  every  jarring  creed 
into  real  gold.  This,  if  adopted,  will  produce  Catholicism  to  the  full.  For 
no  hercsiarch  on  earth  will  refuse  to  adopt  an  orthodox  creed,  if  you  will 
allow  him  to  put  his  own  meaning  to  it,  and  to  explain  it  in  his  own  way. 

For  these  reasons  I  have  no  confidence  in  the  plea  which  is  urged  by  Dr. 
Ueecher  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Woods,  and  wliich  has  been  so  often  urged 
from  other  quarters.  The  truth  is,  we  regard  tlie  points  in  debate  as 
essential  to  the  Christian  system,  and  tliat  the  manner  of  explaining  them 
which  has  been  adopted  is  opening  the  flood-gates  of  heresy  and  infidelity. 
We  cannot,  then,  in  conscience,  assent  to  these  speculations,  even  by  our 
silence.  We  must,  as  in  duty  bound, — for  so  the  Scriptures  expressly 
enjoin  in  such  cases,  —  bear  testimony  against  these  errors.  —  jjp.  22,  23. 

I  did,  indeed,  understand  him  to  say,  at  one  time,  that  he 
only  claimed  the  right  of  interpreting  these  passages  of  the 
Confession  as  the  Church  herself  had  interpreted  them ;  but 
here  I  remark  that  the  Church,  as  a  Church,  never  has  given 
any  interpretation  of  her  standards  ;  and  for  this  obvious 
reason,  that,  when  once  her  principles  have  been  settled  and 
thrown  into  the  form  of  a  Confession,  all  interpretation  is  at 
an  end,  until  she  decides  to  review  and  alter  her  creed.  The 
faitli  she  holds  stands  there  in  her  Confession ;  which  Confes- 
sion is  to  be  received  in  the  obvious  sense  of  its  words,  and  all 
who  become  ministers  and  rulers  in  her  connection  are 
required  to  receive  that  Confession  ex  animo,  without  explan- 
ation. To  prove  this,  I  might  refer  to  every  adjudicated 
case  on  the  records  of  the  General  Asscmljly.  That  body 
never  attempt  to  give  any  interpretation  of  the  Church's 
standards,  but  simply  proceed  to  compare  the  language  and 
conduct  of  individuals  therewith.  The  standards  are  con- 
sidered by  her  as  a  straight  rule,  but  interpretation  can  only 
be  required  when  the  straight  rule  is  to  be  bent  so  as  to 
make  it  coincide  with  every  curve  or  right  angle  to  which  it 

VOL.  III.  12 


134  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

is  applied.  Instead  of  this,  the  curves  and  the  right  angles 
should  be  brought  alongside  the  straight  rule,  and  then  the 
discrepancy  will  at  once  be  obvious  to  all. 

Dr.  Beecher,  in  his  sermon,  with  a  view  to  prove  its 
orthodoxy,  refers  to  certain  authorities ;  which  references  are 
made  both  in  the  body  of  the  discourse  itself,  and  in  the  notes. 
These  authorities  consist  either  of  what  are  called  by  some, 
standard  writers,  or  standard  adjudications.  There  is,  how- 
ever, but  one  adjudication  mentioned,  and  that  is  by  the 
Synod  of  Dort.  It  will,  however,  no  doubt,  be  pleaded,  that 
we  are  to  regard  standard  writers  as  interpreters  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  and  that  we  are  at  liberty  to  refer  to  them 
as  showing  what  was  the  real  meaning  of  its  framers.  But, 
in  all  the  references  contained  in  Dr.  Beecher' s  book,  there 
is  but  one  solitary  allusion  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
but  a  single  quotation  from  any  Presbyterian  minister. 
Why  this  long  array  of  names  ?  Why  are  we  told  of  Justin 
Martyi',  of  Origen,  of  Cyprian,  of  Jerome,  of  Bernard  and 
the  Synod  of  Dort  1  Why  are  we  referred  to  Calvin,  and 
Bellamy,  and  Hopkins,  and  Smalley,  and  West,  and  Strong, 
and  Dwight,  neither  of  whom  ever  adopted  our  standards,  or 
preached  or  published  in  conformity  with  them  ?  Unhappily, 
one  Presbyterian  minister,  and  that  as  sound  a  man  and  as 
ripe  a  scholar  as  is  to  be  found  in  any  age, —  I  mean  Dr. 
Witherspoon, —  and  he  in  but  one  single  sentence  in  all  his 
works,  has  varied  a  hair's  breadth  from  the  standard  he 
acknowledged ;  and  that  single  sentence  has  been  seized  upon 
with  avidity. 

But  the  appeal  is  made  also  to  our  theological  seminaries. 
We  are,  it  seems,  to  interpret  our  standards,  not  only 
according  to  Justin  Martyr,  and  Origen,  and  Cyprian,  and 
Bernard,  but  according  to  the  interpretation  put  upon  them 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  135 

by  our  seminaries.  And  why  are  these  quoted?  It  is 
according  to  the  old  fashion,  which  prevailed  before  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  was  ever  framed,  and  continued  to  prevail 
long  afterward.  It  was  the  fashion  of  the  day  to  refer  theo- 
logical questions  to  the  colleges  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  and 
nobody  knows  how  many  more  ;  and  what  they  decided,  that 
was  to  be  the  interpretation.  Well,  let  it  be  so,  if  it  can  be  ; 
but  I  will  show  you  something  about  our  seminaries.  What 
docs  Prof  Stuart  hold  7  He  is  a  professor  of  high  standing 
in  a  seminary  where  multitudes  of  our  young  men  receive 
their  preparation  for  the  Christian  ministry  ;  and  I  have  not 
heard  any  one,  who  came  from  thence,  that  did  not  say  that 
both  Prof  Stuart  and  Dr.  Woods  advised  them  to  adopt  the 
Confession  of  Faith ;  and  yet,  what  were  the  sentiments 
which  Prof  Stuart  publicly  preached  and  afterwards  pub- 
lished, in  reference  to  Confessions  ?  I  will  quote  a  passage 
or  two  from  a  sermon  preached  by  him  at  the  dedication  of 
Hanover-street  church,  Boston,  in  1826. 

What,  then,  are  the  peculiarities  which  distinguish  them,  and  which 
render  it  proper  to  say  of  them  that  they  meet  in  the  name  of  Christ,  or 
on  account  of  him  ?  A  very  interesting  and  a  very  delicate  question  ;  one 
which,  however,  my  text  leads  me  to  make  an  attempt  briefly  to  answer. 
If  I  am  not  fully,  I  an^  at  least  in  some  good  measure,  aware  of  the  respons- 
ibility and  difficulty  of  the  case.  But  I  am  not  going  to  dogmatize.  I 
shall  appeal  to  no  councils,  no  fathers,  no  creeds,  no  catechisms,  no  works 
of  the  schoolmen,  no  labors  of  acute  and  metaphysical  divines, —  in  a  word, 
to  no  human  system  whatever.  All,  all  of  these  are  made  by  frail,  erring 
men.  They  are  not  of  any  binding  authority,  and  we  have  a  wan*ant  that 
is  sufficient,  not  to  receive  them,  or  any  of  them,  as  possessing  such 
authority.  I  advert  to  the  waiming  of  our  Saviour,  which  bids  us  call  no 
man  master  upon  earth  ;  for  there  is  one  who  is  our  Master  thai  dwelleth 
in  heaven. — pp.  12,  13. 

Now,  what  is  the  testimony  here?     (And  Dr.  Seecher 


136  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

adopted  the  same  sentiment.)  I  object  not  to  the  language, 
but  to  the  application  of  it.  Faithful  adherence  to  a  creed, 
after  we  have  once  adopted  it,  is  calling  no  man  master. 
Professor  Stuart  says : 

Another. peculiar  trait  of  Christians,  as  dra-wn  in  the  New  Testament,  is, 
that  they  render  religious  homage  to  the  Saviour, 

On  this  topic,  as  well  as  on  others,  I  stand  not  in  this  sacred  place  to 
descant  as  a  polemic.  With  human  creeds  or  subtleties,  or  school  distinc- 
tions and  speculations,  I  have  at  present  nothing  to  do.  Creeds  judiciously 
composed,  supported  by  Scripture,  and  embracing  essential  doctrines  only, 
are  useful  as  a  symbol  of  common  faith  among  churches.  But  they  are  not 
the  basis  of  a  Protestant's  belief;  nor  should  they  be  regarded  as  the 
vouchers  for  it.  — pp.  24,  25. 

So  much  for  the  authority  of  this  seminary. 

But  now  let  us  go  to  another  seminary,  and  hear  what 
language  it  holds.  I  quote  from  a  book  entitled,  "A  Plea 
for  United  Christian  Action,"  by  R.  H.  Eishop,  D.D. 

To  what  an  extent  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  doctrines  exists  among  the 
ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  present  generation,  very  few, 
I  am  persuaded,  are  prepared  to  say  with  any  degree  of  exactness.  But 
were  we  to  compare  the  present  state  of  opinion  with  what  is  known  to 
have  been  the  state  of  opinion  among  the  divines  of  a  former  generation, 
who  are  now  admitted  to  have  been  orthodox,  the  result  likely  would  be, 
that  we  are  not  more  divided  on  any  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith  than  the  fathers  of  that  age  themselves  were. 
Baxter  and  Owen,  for  instance,  are  readily  appealed  to  by  almost  every 
minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  standards  of  correct  theological 
opinion  ;  and  yet,  these  men  have  given  very  different  explanations  of 
some  of  the  most  important  doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  and 
neither  of  these  men  went  in  all  things  with  the  assembly.  Nor  have  we 
any  reason  to  believe  that  the  divines  of  the  assembly  themselves,  in  their 
final  vote  upon  the  most  of  the  articles  in  the  Confession,  were  agreed  upon 
any  other  principle  than  the  principle  of  compromise.  An  approximation 
towards  unity  of  opinion,  as  the  best  modes  of  expressing  our  individual 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  137 

views  of  divine  truth,  is  all  that  ever  can  be  obtained  in  our  ad])erencc  to  a 
public  creed.  — p.  18. 

If  this  be  true,  we  must  forever  live  in  disobedience  to  that 
command  of  the  Bible  which  enjoins  all  Christians  to  "speak 
the  same  things." 

And  now,  Sir,  as  part  of  my  argument,  I  beg  leave  to  read 
some  passages  of  my  reply  to  Dr.  Bishop. 

Has  Dr.  Bishop  yet  to  learn  that  the  Assembly  of  Divines  did  not  meet 
of  their  own  accord  ;  that  they  were  permitted  to  discuss  no  subject  but 
what  was  proposed  to  them  by  Parliament  ;  that  they  were  carefully 
watched  by  lords  and  commons,  to  see  that  they  did  not  transcend  their 
commission  ;  that  they  sat  long,  and  carefully  investigated  every  subject 
committed  to  their  consideration  ;  that  when  they  gave  "  their  final  vote  " 
upon  each  article,  they  gave  that  vote  upon  principle,  and  not  upon  com- 
promise;  that  they  were  all  at  liberty,  when  their  labors  were  ended,  and 
the  assembly  was  dissolved,  to  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith,  catechisms 
and  government,  or  not,  as  they  pleased  ;  and  that  Owen,  and  Baxter,  and 
Usher,  and  many  others,  never  adopted  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  ?  Why,  Sir,  do  you  amuse  yourself  and  deceive  your  hearers  by 
illustrations  drawn  from  the  theological  differences  of  such  men  ? 

To  show  that  there  was  no  compromise  in  the  votes  of  the  Assembly  of 
Divines,  I  need  only  cite  one  or  two  cases.  The  assembly  were  unani- 
mously of  opinion  that  "baptism  is  rightly  administered  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling  water  upon  the  person."  But  some  members  thought  that 
dipping  or  immersion  ought  to  be  allowed  as  "  a  mode  of  baptism."  On 
this  subject  the  assembly  were  divided,  and  the  modei'ator  gave  the  casting 
vote  against  immersion.  They  all  agreed  that  "  pouring  or  sprinkling  " 
was  right.  But  twenty-four  out  of  forty-nine  thought  immersion  might  be 
allowed  as  "  a  moAe  of  baptism."  When  they  were  so  equally  divided  upon 
"  a  mode"  of  external  ordinance,  and  no  compromise  could  be  had,  and 
when  the  majority  inserted  in  the  book  that  "  dipping  the  person  in  water 
is  not  necessary,"  but  that  **  baptism  as  ordained  by  Christ  is  the  washing 
with  water  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  water  upon  the  person,  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  &c.,"  can  any  sober-minded  man  believe  they  would  com- 
promise the  essential  truths  of  salvation  ? 

Take  another  case.     The  Assembly  of  Divines,  of  Westminster,  was,  at 

VOL.  III.  12* 


138  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

first,  composed  of  Episcopalians,  Erastians,  Independents  and  Presbyteri- 
ans. I  know  not  that  any  of  the  Anabaptists,  Neonomians,  or  Antino- 
mians,  were  members.  The  Parliament  sent  an  order  "  that  the  Assembly 
of  Divines  and  others  should  forthwith  confer,  and  treat  among  them- 
selves, of  such  a  discipline  and  government  as  may  be  most  agreeable  to 
God's  Holy  Word,  and  to  deliver  their  advice  touching  the  same,  to  ^oth 
houses  of  Parliament,  with  all  convenient  speed,"  A  plan  was  proposed,  in 
order  to  unite  all  parties,  namely,  that  every  bishop  shoiild  be  independent, 
and  that  synods  and  councils  should  be  for  concord,  and  not  for  government. 
Archbishop  Usher  was  agreed  to  this  plan.  But  no  compromue  could  be 
obtained.  The  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government  was  adopted.  I 
find  no  case  of  compromise,  but  in  regard  to  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant.  The  Scots'  commissioners  were  instructed  "  to  promote  the 
extirpation  of  popery,  prelacy,  heresy,  schisms,  scepticism  and  idolatry,  and 
to  endeavor  an  union  between  the  two  kingdoms,  in  one  confession  of  faith, 
one  form  of  church  government,  and  one  directory  of  worship." 

The  solemn  league  and  covenant  was  to  pave  the  way  for  all  this,  and 
was  to  be  considered  the  safeguard  of  religion  and  liberty.  This  league 
was  adopted  in  Scotland,  none  opposing  it  but  tiie  king's  commissioners. 
When  it  was  presented  to  the  two  houses  of  Parliament,  they  referred  it  to 
the  Assembly  of  Divines,  where  it  met  with  opposition. 

"  Dr.  Featly  declared  he  durst  not  abjure  prelacy  absolutely,  because 
he  had  sworn  to  obey  his  bishop  in  all  things  lawful  and  honest;  and  there- 
fore proposed  to  qualify  the  second  article  thus  :  '  I  will  endeavor  the  ex- 
tirpation of  popery,  and  all  anti-Christian,  tyrannical,  or  independent 
prelacy ; '  but  it  was  carried  against  him.  Dr.  Burgess  objected  to  several 
articles,  and  was  not  without  some  difficulty  persuaded  to  subscribe,  after 
he  had  been  suspended."  This  looks  very  much  like  the  days  of  com- 
promise, does  it  not  ?  Yet,  there  was  a  compromise.  Mr.  Gataker  and 
many  others  declared  for  primitive  episcopacy,  or  for  one  stated  president, 
with  his  presbyters  to  govern  every  church,  and  refused  to  subscribe  till  a 
parenthesis  was  inserted,  declaring  what  sort  of  prelacy  was  to  be  abjured. 

The  Scots,  who  had  been  iutroduced  into  the  assembly,  were  for  abjur- 
ing episcopacy  as  simply  unlawful;  but  the  English  divines  were  generally 
against  it.  The  English  pressed  chiefly  for  a  civil  league,  but  the  Scots 
would  have  a  religious  one,  to  which  the  English  were  obliged  to  yield, 
taking  care,  at  the  same  time,  to  leave  a  door  open  for  a  latitude  of  inter- 
pretation. Here  was  a  compromise.  And  what  was  the  door  of  "  latitude 
of  interpretation  "  ?    It  was  this  :  The  English  inserted  the  phrase  "  of 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  139 

reforming  according  to  the  Word  of  God  ;"  by  which  they  thought  them- 
selves secure  from  the  inroads  of  Presbytery.  The  Scots  inserted  the 
words  "  according  to  the  practice  of  the  best  reformed  churches,"  in  which 
they  were  confident  their  discipline  must  be  included.  Here  was  a  com- 
promise from  necessity.  The  English  were  obliged  to  adopt  a  religious 
league  and  covenant,  or  not  obtain  the  assistance  of  the  Scots  in  a  war 
which  they  were  carrying  on  in  defence  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  As 
your  reading  is  much  more  extensive  and  minute  than  mine,  I  beg  you  to 
point  out  the  instances  where  compromises  were  made,  and  a  latitude  of 
interpretation  allowed  on  points  of  doctrine,  I  believe  it  will  be  a  difficult 
task  for  you,  or  any  member  of  the  New  School,  to  do  this.  And  if  this  bo 
not  done,  I  hope  to  hear  no  more  about  compromising  the  truths  of  God. 
—  pp.  9,  10. 

What  I  wish  to  impress  upon  the  mind  of  every  member 
of  this  court  is,  that  it  is  out  of  place  to  quote  the  opinions 
of  men  as  standard  writers,  and  interpret  the  Confession  of 
Faith  by  them.  The  opinions  of  men,  on  the  contrary,  must 
conform  to  the  standard  as  to  a  straight  line.  Still  more 
absurd  is  it  to  quote  men  who  never  adopted  our  standards  at 
all.  Yet  Dr.  Bishop  refers  us  to  Baxter  and  Owen,  who 
gave  "  very  diiferent  explanations  of  some  of  the  most  im- 
portant doctrines  of  the  Westminster' Confession,"  as  Dr. 
Bishop  affirms.  What  have  these  different  explanations  to  do 
with  tlie  Confession  of  Faith  ?  If  men  do  not  adopt  the  Con- 
fession, it  is  obvious  their  opinions  have  nothing  to  do  with 
it ;  and  if  they  do  adopt  it,  and  then  give  opinions  different 
from  it,  their  creed  should  be  brought  up,  proposition  by 
proposition,  line  by  line,  word  by  word,  to  the  straight  line, 
that  their  crooks  and  turnings  may  be  discovered.  I  will 
here  state  but  one  case  in  illustration.  I  published  a  sermon 
on  Imputation.  AVlien  its  orthodoxy  was  questioned,  I 
wanted  my  sermon  laid  side  by  side  with  the  Confession  of 
Faith.     The  editor  of  the  New  York  Evangelist  reviewed 


140  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

that  sermon  ;  and,  in  the  course  of  his  review,  what  does  he 
say?  That  Dr.  Woods  advised  his  pupils,  if  they  should 
change  their  theological  views,  still  to  retain  the  same  Ian- 
guage.  But  that  editor  himself,  with  more  honesty,  denies 
both  language  and  thing.  If  he  has  falsified  Dr.  Woods,  he 
alone  is  responsible  for  it. 

[Professor  Biggs  inquired  for  the  copy  of  the  Evangelist 
to  whicli  Dr.  Wilson  referred.  But  the  doctor  replied  that 
he  had  had  only  a  borrowed  copy,  which  was  not  now  in  his 
possession.] 

The  editor  of  the  Evangelist  says  that  he  agrees  with 
me,  and  I  with  him,  as  to  the  sense  of  the  standards ;  but  that 
I,  and  all  who  hold  in  sentiment  with  me,  are  absurd. 
Now,  I  think  that  the  editor  is  quite  as  orthodox  as  those 
who,  while  they  contradict  the  doctrine  of  the  standard,  still 
retain  its  language ;  and,  wliile  he  is  equally  orthodox,  he 
is  a  little  more  honest.  Yes,  sir,  I  love  that  man,  though  I 
hate  his  errors ;  I  love  him  for  his  frankness,  and  for  his 
honesty.  He  comes  plump  up  to  the  mark,  and  speaks  out 
what  he  means. 

To  sum  up  what  I  have  to  say  on  this  subject,  I  deny 
the  justice  of  this  claim  of  interpretation,  for  the  following 
reasons  : 

(1.)  Because,  when  a  Confession  of  Faith  is  settled,  inter- 
pretation is  at  an  end ;  until  it  becomes  unsettled,  and  a  reso- 
lution is  formed  to  reconsider  and  alter  it. 

(2.)  Because  no  one  is  compelled  to  adopt  the  Confession 
of  Faith :  and  those  who  do  are  bound  to  adopt  it  in  its 
obvious,  unexplained  sense. 

(3.)  "Where  the  right  of  interpretation  is  claimed  and  ex- 
ercised, it  introduces  endless  disputes;  and  meirwill  use  an 


TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  141 

orthodox  language,  and  still  teacli  error  by  explaining  away 
the  language  they  use. 

(4.)  The  judicatories  of  the  Church,  in  giving  decisions 
upon  erroneous  opinions,  never  explain  the  standards,  but 
simply  compare  the  language  of  which  complaint  is  made 
with  the  language  of  the  book.  All  the  decided  cases  have 
brought  alleged  error  by  the  side  of  the  standards  in  their 
obvious  language.  Witness  the  decisions  in  the  cases  of 
Balch,  Davis,  Stone,  Craighead,  and  the  Cumberland  Pres- 
byterians. The  compromise  was  adopted  only  in  the  case  of 
Barnes. 

You  sit  here  as  judges  and  jurors.  As  jurors,  you  decide 
the  facts ;  as  judges,  you  compare  the  facts  with  the  law  in 
its  obvious  meaning, —  that  is,  as  unexplained. 

5.  Duty  compels  me  to  notice  a  fifth  obstacle  to  a  right 
decision  in  this  case  ;  and  which  is  found  in  the  real  condition 
of  this  court.  I  feel.  Sir,  that  I  am  speaking  on  a  delicate 
subject.     I  hope  I  shall  speak  so  as  not  to  give  offence. 

[Mr.  Rankin  here  interposed,  and  inquired  whether  it 
was  in  order  for  Dr.  Wilson  to  impugn  the  integrity  of  the 
Presbytery. 

The  Moderator  replied  that  it  would  not  be  in  order,  but 
advised  Mr.  Rankin  to  wait  until  he  heard  what  Dr.  Wilson 
had  to  say.] 

Dr.  Wilson  said  that  he  had  no  wish  to  impugn  the 
motives  of  any  man.  But  it  was  known  that,  at  this  time,  and 
ever  since  Dr.  Beecher  had  been  received  into  the  Presby- 
tery, there  was  a  large  majority  of  its  members  who  coincided 
with  him  in  his  theological  views.  While  some,  with  pain 
and  with  great  reluctance,  but  for  conscience'  sake,  are  con- 
strained to  oppose  them ;  others  have  taken  him  by  the  hand, 
circulated  his  sermons,  praised  his  works,  and  held  him  up  as 


142  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

the  first  theologian  of  his  day.  Could  it  be  supposed  or  ex- 
pected that  brethren  in  such  a  situation  would  be  willing  to 
bring  up  Dr.  Beecher  to  the  standards  of  the  Church,  and  try 
him  and  his  works  by  that  rule  ?  In  condemning  him,  must 
they  not  condemn  themselves  7  And  was  it  to  be  expected 
that  they  should  be  willing  to  commit  suicide  ? 

[Mr.  Kankin  again  interposed,  and  declared  that  such 
language  wa,s  wholly  inadmissible. 

Dr.  Beecher  said  that  he  wished  Dr.  Wilson  to  be  per- 
mitted to  say  all  he  had  to  say  on  that  topic] 

Dr.  Wilson  replied  that  he  was  done ;  he  had  nothing 
more  to  say  respecting  it. 

6.  A  sixth  obstacle  is  found  in  the  fact  that  many 
orthodox  and  excellent  sentiments  had  been  preached  and 
published  by  Dr.  Beecher.  All  this  he  most  freely  and 
cheerfully  admitted.  But,  said  he,  the  question  is,  when  we 
find  orthodox  sentiments  contained  in  a  certain  book,  but 
also  find  thrown  in  and  linked  in,  and  (to  use  an  expres- 
sion of  Dr.  Beecher' s)  "twisted  in,"  with  these  orthodox 
sentiments,  a  set  of  most  heretical  and  pernicious  opinions, 
what  is  it  but  a  concealing  of  poison  amidst  wholesome 
aliment  ?  Is  not  the  poison  the  more  dangerous,  from  the 
inviting  food  with  which  it  is  surrounded?  And  can  anything 
be  worse  than  the  practice  of  such  artifice?  Sir,  on  this 
subject  let  me  show  you  a  book.  It  is  entitled  "  The  Gospel 
Plan,"  by  Wm.  C.  Davis ;  and  in  this  book  may  be  found 
some  of  the  finest  possible  passages,  both  as  to  the  eloquence 
of  the  language  and  the  soundness  and  orthodoxy  of  the  sen- 
timents they  convey.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  such  senti- 
ment, and  presented  in  the  ablest  and  most  convincing 
manner.  In  fact,  the  greater  part  of  the  book  is  of  this 
character.      Yet    this  book   contains  the  most  pernicious 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  143 

heresy.  And  where  is  the  poison  to  be  found  7  In  com- 
paratively but  a  fcAV  pages,  though  in  a  covert  manner  it  is 
wrought  into  many  more.  And  what  was  the  fate  of  Wm. 
C.  Davis  ?  He  was  convicted  of  heresy,  and  suspended  from 
the  ministry.  But  did  the  Presbytery  which  tried  him 
read  this  whole  work  of  six  hundred  pages  on  his  trial,  in 
order  to  find  out  the  error  ?  No,  Sir  ;  they  extracted  eight 
propositions,  which  were  short,  concise,  and  decidedly  errone- 
ous. Of  these  I  will  give  you  two  as  a  specimen ;  and  one 
of  these,  in  the  self-same  words,  is  contained  in  Dr.  Beecher's 
sermon  on  the  Native  Character  of  Man.  The  proposition 
is,  that  God  could  not  make  Adam  or  any  other  creature 
either  holy  or  unholy.  And  the  sentiment  is,  that  where 
there  has  been  as  yet  no  choice,  there  can  be  nothing  in  the 
creature  either  good  or  bad.  And  what  says  Dr.  Beecher  in 
his  sermon  7  He  declares  that  no  action  can  be  either  holy 
or  unholy,  unless  there  is  understanding,  conscience  and  a 
choice.  The  other  proposition  is,  that  no  just  law  ever  con- 
demns or  criminates  a  man  for  not  doing  that  which  he  cannot 
do.  And .  how  often  was  that  very  sentiment  asserted  and 
repeated,  iterated  and  reiterated,  in  the  sermon  which  was 
read  to  us  yesterday  ?  I  shall  not  pretend  to  say,  but  leave 
the  court  to  decide. 

Having  now  removed,  or  at  least  attempted  to  remove,  out 
of  the  way,  what  I  conceive  to  be  important  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  a  just  decision,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  examine  the 
charges  themselves,  seriathn,  with  their  several  specifications, 
and  the  evidence  in  support  of  them. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  of  ten  minutes. 


144  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

FIEST   CHARGE. 

The  court  being  reassembled,  Dr.  Wilson  proceeded  to 
read  again  the  first  charge.     [See  it  on  page  85.] 

He  then  quoted  the  Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  vi.  sects.  3,  4,  6 : 

III.  They  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed, 
and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their  pos- 
terity, descending  from  them  by  ordinary  generation. 

rV.  From  this  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed, 
disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do 
proceed  all  actual  transgressions. 

"VT.  Every  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  being  a  transgression  of  the 
righteous  law  of  God,  and  contrary  thereunto,  doth,  in  its  own  nature, 
bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner,  whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God, 
and  curse  of  the  law,  and  so  made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries, 
spiritual,  temporal,  and  eternal. 

Also  the  Larger  Catechism,  questions  26,  27 : 

Q.  26.  How  is  original  sin  conveyed  from  our  first  parents  unto  their 
posterity  ? 

A.  Original  sin  is  conveyed  from  our  first  parents  unto  their  posterity  by 
natural  generation,  so  as  all  that  proceed  from  them  in  that  way  are 
conceived  and  born  in  sin.  ' 

Q.  27.  What  misery  did  the  fall  bring  upon  mankind  ? 

A.  The  fall  brought  upon  mankind  the  loss  of  communion  with  God,  his 
displeasure  and  curse  ;  so  as  we  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  bond- 
slaves to  Satan,  and  justly  liable  to  all  punishments  in  this  world,  and  that 
which  is  to  come. 

He  next  read  the  passage  from  Dr.  Beecher's  sermon  on 
the  Native  Character  of  Man,  beginning  (page  72)  "A  de- 
praved nature  is  by  many  understood,  &c.,"  and  ending  (page 
74)  ''  The  fool  has  said  in  his  heart,  no  God." 

The  preceding  part  of  this  sermon  was  intended  to  prove 
that  man  is  not  religious  by  nature.  It  will  be  recollected 
that  throughout  the  whole  of  what  precedes  this  passage  there 
is  a  mixture  of  that  which  has  a  wrong  tendency,  and  is 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  145 

against  the  standards  of  our  Church.  For,  let  it  not  be  for- 
gotten, that  when  the  original  proposition  has  been  sustained, 
this  paragraph  is  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  explanation,  in 
order  to  show  what  the  writer  means  by  the  term  accounta- 
bility, in  those  passages  where  the  meaning  of  that  terra  is  not 
so  explicit.  And  the  explanation  goes  to  show  that  the  sen- 
timent of  the  writer  is,  that  tho'e  is  a  pe?'iod  m  numan  ex- 
istcuce  tulien  the  creature  is  neither  good  nor  had.  Now, 
the  question  is,  whether  this  sentiment  does  or  does  not  coin- 
cide with  the  standards  of  our  Church.  Is  it  not  at  variance 
with  them  ?  —  nay,  does  it  not  positively  contradict  them  ?  The 
question  must  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  stand- 
ards of  our  Church  must  be  sustaiiied.  I  might  easily  go  on 
to  show  that,  according  to  this  doctrine,  the  condition  in  whic'h 
children  are  jDlaced  under  the  moral  government  of  God  is 
such  as  fits  them  neither  for  heaven  nor  for  hell ;  for,  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Eeecher,  they  are  neither  holy  nor  sinful.  In 
contradiction  to  which,  I  might  as  easily  prove,  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  the  faith  of  all  sound 
Calvinists,  that  they  are  under  condemnation,  although  they 
have  not  sinned  according  to  the  similitude  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression. Our  standards  keep  up  a  constant  distinction  be- 
tween original  sin,  the  turpitude  conveyed  by  it,  and  the 
punishment  incurred  previous  to  the  time  of  volition  on 
one  hand,  and  actual  sin  on  the  other,  as  proceeding  from  the 
depraved  and  corrupted  nature  of  the  children  of  Adam,  who 
are  all  born  under  a  broken  covenant,  and  whose  fallen  nature 
is  inherited,  without  their  knowledge  or  consent,  from  the 
federative  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  Adam,  their  repre- 
sentative and  first  father. 

As  to  the  first  sin  in  any  man,  there  are  none  who  deny 
that  it  is  voluntary.     But  our  standards  teach  that  it  is  never- 

VOL.    III.  13 


146  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

theless  only  a  corrupt  stream  proceeding  from  a  corrupt  foun- 
tain. This  the  sermon  denies ;  and  holds  that,  previous  to 
this,  the  creature  is  neither  good  nor  bad.  Let  us  here  apply 
our  Saviour's  own  rule  of  judgment.  He  says  that  a  good 
tree  brings  forth  good  fruit :  and  a  corrupt  tree  brings  forth 
evil  fruit.  But  a  tree  which  is  neither  good  nor  bad  can 
produce  neither  good  nor  bad  fruit.  If  it  be  true  that  actions 
proceeding  from  any  nature  are  in  accordance  with  the  nature 
from  which  they  proceed,  then  that  which  proceeds  from  a 
nature  neither  holy  nor  sinful,  can  itself  be  neither  sinful  nor 
holy. 

But  it  is  said  that  those  who  deny  this,  place  mind  and 
matter  upon  the  same  footing ;  and  that  the  error  of  those  who 
think  that  men  are  born  in  sin  arises  from  supposing  that  the 
nature  of  mind  and  matter  is  the  same.  Hear  what  the  ser- 
mon says  on  this  subject : 

A  depraved  nature  is  by  many  understood  to  mean  a  constitutional 
nature,  sinful  prior  to  choice,  and  producing  sinful  choice  by  an  unavoid- 
able necessity,  as  fountains  of  water  pour  forth  their  bitter  streams,  or 
trees  produce  their  bitter  fruit.  The  mistake  lies  in  a  virtual  implication 
that  the  nature  of  matter  and  mind  are  the  same  ;  whereas  they  are 
entirely  different.  The  nature  of  matter  excludes  powers  of  perception, 
understanding  and  choice.  But  the  nature  of  accountable  mind  includes 
them  all.  Neither  a  holy  or  a  depraved  nature,  in  the  strict  sense,  is 
possible,  without  acts  of  understanding,  conscience  and  choice.  —  pp.  72,  73. 

Does  the  writer  mean  to  say  that  none  of  the  animals  has  a 
depraved  nature  ?  that  the  serpent,  the  vulture,  the  tiger,  have 
not  a  nature  that  is  depraved  ?  This  he  does  not  mean.  But, 
if  they  have,  whence  did  they  derive  it  ?  whence,  but  from 
the  curse  of  the  fall  ?  Would  there  have  been  any  evil  among 
the  animals,  if  God  had  not  said,  '•  Cursed  is  the  ground  for 
thy  sake  "  1     Still  there  is  a  wide  difference  between  the  rela- 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  14f 

tion  which  these  inferior  beings  sustain  to  Adam  and  that 
which  his  own  children  sustain  to  him.  Yet,  according  to  the 
sermon,  this  is  not  so. 

But  I  forbear.  The  court  has  the  sermon  in  its  hands,  and 
is  as  competent  as  I  can  be,  to  compare  it  with  the  standards 
of  the  Church,  and  to  see  how  far  they  agree  or  disagree.  Nor 
can  they  fail  to  see  that  this  is  but  one  part  of  a  system  which 
a  logical  mind  must  carry  out  to  other  and  most  important 
results.     What  these  results  are,  I  shall  show  hereafter. 

SECOND   CHARGE. 

Dr.  Wilson  now  again  read  the  second  charge.  [See  it  on 
page  86.]  Also  the  following  from  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
eh.  IX.  sec.  3  : 

Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to 
any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation  ;  so  as  a  natural  man,  being 
altogether  averse  from  that  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own 
strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereunto. 

Dr.  Wilson  also  read  the  following  from  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism, Quest.  25  ;  and  Shorter  Cat,  Questions  101,  103  : 

Q.  Wherein  consisteth  the  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell  ? 

A.  The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell  consisteth  in  the 
guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  that  righteousness  wherein  he  was 
created,  and  the  corruption  of  his  nature,  whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed, 
disabled,  and  made  opposite  unto  all  tliat  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly 
inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that  continually  ;  which  is  commonly  called  Original 
Sin,  and  from  which  do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions. 

Q.  What  do  we  pray  for  in  the  fii-st  petition  ? 

A.  In  the  first  petition  (which  is,  Hallowed  be  thy  name)  we  pray  that 
God  would  enable  us  and  others  to  glorify  him  in  all  that  whereby  he 
maketh  himself  known  ;  and  that  he  would  dispose  of  all  things  to  his  own 
glory. 

Q.  What  do  we  pray  for  in  the  third  petition  ? 

A.  In  the  tliird  petition  (which  is.  Thy  will  be  done  on  earth,  as  it  is  in 


148  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

heaven)  we  pray  that  God,  by  his  grace,  would  make  us  able  and  willing 
to  know,  obey,  and  submit  to  his  will  in  all  things,  as  the  angels  do  in 
heaven. 

With  respect  to  what  is  here  said  concerning  Free  Will,  the 
declarations  of  our  standards  are  proved  by  facts  recorded  in 
the  Scripture.  The  first  declaration  is  proved  by  the  fact, 
that  Adam  was  not  forced  to  eat  the  forbidden  fruit;  the 
second  is  proved  from  the  fact,  that  Adam  at  first  did  good,  and 
then  did  evil.  And  the  third  is  no  less  proved  by  fact  and 
daily  observation  :  for  men  never  do  convert  themselves,  nor 
prepare  themselves  for  being  converted.  They  are  wholly 
indisposed  and  unable,  from  the  fall,  to  do  either.  But  the 
framers  of  this  confession,  speaking  of  the  will,  say  that  the 
inability  is  an  inability  of  the  will.  But,  in  the  questions  of 
the  catechism,  and  through  the  standards  generally,  they  take 
a  just  distinction  between  ability  and  will.  It  is,  indeed,  said 
that  man  is  unwilling  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God,  but 
they  give  a  fuller  explanation  when  they  come  to  state  what 
it  is  we  ought  to  pray  for  ;  for  there  they  teach  the  Church 
that  she  is  to  ask  God  to  make  her  both  able  and  willing  to 
keep  his  commandments.  And  I  have  cited  these  passages 
to  prevent  any  cavil  that  might  find  seeming  justification  in 
the  phraseology  of  this  chapter  on  the  will.  From  the  words 
of  the  chapter  alone,  it  might  be  argued,  that  though  man  has 
lost  the  will,  he  still  retains  the  natural  ability  to  keep  the 
divine  law.  But  what  the  chapter  does  mean  on  this  subject 
is  afterwards  more  fully  explained,  and  from  these  subsequent 
explanations  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  our  standards  deny  in  a 
fallen  man  both  ability  and  will  to  do  anything  spiritually 
good. 

Dr.  Wilson  now  read  again  the  second  specification.  [See 
it  on  page  87.] 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  149 

He  then  read  an  extract  from  Dr.  Beecher's  sermon  on 
Dependence  and  Free  Agency. 

The  sinner  can  be  accountable,  then,  and  he  is  accountable,  for  his  im- 
penitence and  unbelief,  thougli  he  will  not  turn,  and  God  may  never  turn 
him,  because  he  is  able  and  only  unwilling  to  do  what  God  commands,  and 
which,  being  done,  would  save  his  soul.  Indeed,  to  be  able  and  unwilling 
to  obey  God,  is  the  only  possible  way  in  which  a  free  agent  can  become  de- 
serving of  condemnation  and  punishment.  So  long  as  he' is  able  and  willing 
to  obey  there  can  be  no  sin  ;  and  the  moment  the  ability  of  obedience 
ceases,  the  commission  of  sin  becomes  impossible.  — p.  22. 

Here  the  question  naturally  arises,  How  does  it  happen 
that  such  multitudes  of  the  human  family  suffer  so  much  as 
they  do  previous  to  the  possession  of  the  knowledge,  conscience, 
and  volition,  which  is  declared  to  be  essential  to  all  sin?  He 
then  read  from  pages  31,  32,  36. 

And  the  more  clear  the  light  of  his  conviction  shines,  the  more  distinct 
is  the  sinner's  perception  that  he  is  —  not  destitute  of  capacity,  but  in- 
flexibly unwilling  to  obey  the  Gospel.  Does  the  Spirit  of  God  produce  con- 
victions which  are  contrary  to  fact,  and  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the 
Bible  ?  Never,  What,  then,  when  he  moves  on  to  that  work  of  sovereign 
mercy,  which  no  sinner  ever  resisted,  and  without  which  no  one  ever  sub- 
mitted to  God,  —  what  does  he  do  ?  When  he  pours  the  daylight  of  omnis- 
cience upon  the  soul,  and  comes  to  search  out  what  is  amiss,  and  put  in 
order  that  which  is  out  of  the  way,  what  impediment  to  obedience  does 
he  find  to  be  removed,  and  what  work  does  he  perform  ?  He  finds  only  tlie 
will  perverted,  and  obstinately  persisting  in  its  sinful  choice  ;  antl  in  the 
day  of  his  power  all  he  accomplishes  is,  to  make  the  sinner  willing.  —  p.  31. 

It  is  not  grace  resisted  alone,  but  the  ability  of  man  perverted  and 
abused,  that  brings  down  upon  him  guilt  and  condemnation.  The  influence 
of  the  Spirit  belongs  wholly  to  the  remedial  system.  Whereas  ability 
commensurate  with  requirement  is  the  equitable  and  everlasting  founda- 
tion of  the  moral  government  of  God.  —  p.  32. 

The  facts  in  the  case  are  just  the  other  way.     The  doctrine  of  man's  free 
agency  and  natural  ability  as  the  ground  of  obligation  and  guilt,  and  of  his 
impotency  of  will  by  reason  of  sin,  has  been  the  received  doctrine  of  the 
orthodox  church  in  all  ages.  —  p.  36. 
VOL.  III.  13^ 


150  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

To  prove  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  orthodox  church, 
we  have  here  a  long  array  of  names  of  men,  the  most  of  whom 
never  so  much  as  professed  to  embrace  our  confession ;  and 
not  a  single  item  from  that  book  which  Dr.  Beecher  so  loudly 
eulogized,  and  pressed  with  so  much  emphasis  to  his  heart. 

Dr.  Wilson  then  read  the  fifth  specification.  [See  it  on 
page  87.]  He  also  read  the  Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  xiii. 
sec.  Ij  and  ch.  xiv.  sec.  1. 

They  who  are  effectually  called  and  regenerated,  having  a  new  heart  and 
a  new  spirit  created  in  them,  are  further  sanctified,  really  and  personally, 
through  the  virtue  of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection,  by  his  word  and 
Spirit  dwelling  in  them  ;  the  dominion  of  the  whole  body  of  sin  is  de- 
stroyed, and  the  several  lusts  thereof  are  more  and  more  weakened  and 
mortified,  and  they  more  and  more  quickened  and  strengthened  in  all 
saving  graces,  to  the  practice  of  true  holiness,  without  which  no  man  shall 
see  the  Lord.  —  Ch.  xiii.  sec.  1. 

The  grace  of  faith,  whereby  the  elect  are  enabled  to  believe  to  the  saving 
of  their  souls,  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  their  hearts,  and  is 
ordinarily  wrought  by  the  ministry  of  the  word  :  by  which  also,  and  by 
the  admiuistration  of  the  sacraments,  and  prayer,  it  is  increased  and 
strengthened.  —  Ch.  xiv.  sec.  1. 

Also  the  Larger  Catechism,  Question  72  : 

Q.  72.  What  is  justifying  faith  ? 

A.  Justifying  faith  is  a  saving  grace,  wrought  in  the  heart  of  a  sinner 
by  the  Spirit  and  Word  of  God,  whereby  he,  being  convinced  of  his  sin  and 
misery,  and  of  the  disability  in  himself  and  all  other  creatures  to  recover 
him  out  of  his  lost  condition,  not  only  assenteth  to  the  truth  of  the 
promise  of  the  Gospel,  but  receiveth  and  resteth  upon  Christ  and  his 
righteousness,  therein  held  forth,  for  pardon  of  sin,  and  for  the  accepting 
and  accounting  of  his  person  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God  for  salvation. 

He  then  read  from  Dr.  Beecher' s  sermon,  page  43. 

One  would  think  that  a  subject  of  God's  glorious  government,  who  can  but 
will  not  obey  him,  might  appear  to  himself  and  to  the  universe  much  more 
accountable,  and  much  more  guilty,  in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  one 
whose  capacity  of  obedience  had  been  wholly  annihilated  by  the  sin  of 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  151 

Adam.     Does  it  illustrate  the  glory  of  God's  justice  more  to  punish  the 
helpless  and  impotent  than  to  punish  the  -voluntary  but  incorrigible  ? 

In  answer  to  this,  it  might  be  said,  that,  for  God  to  punish 
the  innocent  and  the  helpless,  would  exhibit  his  character 
only  in  the  light  of  a  tyrant.  But,  as  he  does  punish  the 
inflmts  of  our  race,  it  remains  for  Dr.  Beecher  to  reconcile 
what  he  here  says  with  the  standards  of  our  Church.  Where 
is  there  a  single  sentence  in  those  standards  which  contains 
the  assertion  that  all  capacity  of  obedience  has  been  amiihi- 
lated  by  the  sin  of  Adam  ?  And  here  I  may  remark,  that 
the  disciples  of  the  new  school,  when  speaking  on  the  subject 
of  original  sin,  either  deny  or  caricature  it. 

Dr.  Wilson  here  read  further  extracts  from  Dr.  Beecher' s 
sermon. 

Also  from  the  Christian  Spectator  for  1825,  p.  100,  as 
follows : 

Men  are  free  agents  ;  in  the  possession  of  such  faculties,  and  placed  in 
such  circumstances,  as  to  render  it  practicable  for  them  to  do  whatever 
God  requires  ;  reasonable  that  he  should  require  it  ;  and  fit  that  he  should 
inflict  literally  the  entire  penalty  of  disobedience.  Such  ability  is  here 
intended  as  lays  a  perfect  foundation  for  government  by  law,  and  for 
rewards  and  punishment  according  to  deeds. 

The  Presbytery  now  adjourned.     Closed  with  prayer. 


Friday  Morning. 
The  Presbytery  met,  and  opened  with  prayer. 

CHARGE   TUTRD. 

Dr.  Wilson  read  the  third  charge.     [See  it  on  page  88.] 
Also   the  Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  vi.  sees.  2,  4,  ch.  ix.  3. 


152  VIEWS  OP  THEOLOGY. 

L.  C.  Ques.  25  [quoted  page  147],  149,  190.     S.  C.  Ques. 
101,  103  [quoted  page  147]. 

II.  By  this  sin  they  fell  from  their  original  righteousness  and  communion 
Tvith  God,  and  so  became  dead  in  sin,  and  wholly  defiled  in  all  the  faculties 
and  parts  of  soul  and  body. 

rV.  From  this  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed, 
disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil, 
do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions. 

m.  ]\Ian,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will 
to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation  ;  so  as  a  natural  man,  being 
altogether  averse  from  that  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own 
strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereunto. 

Q.  149.  Is  any  man  able  perfectly  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God  ? 

A.  No  man  is  able,  either  of  himself,  or  by  any  grace  received  in  this 
life,  perfectly  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God  :  but  doth  daily  break 
them  in  thought,  word  and  deed. 

Q.  190.  What  do  we  pray  for  in  the  first  petition  ? 

A,  In  the  first  petition  (which  is.  Hallowed  be  thy  name),  acknowledg- 
ing the  utter  inabihty  and  indisposition  that  is  in  ourselves,  and  all  men, 
to  honor  God  aright,  we  pray  that  God  would,  by  his  grace,  enable  and 
incline  us  and  others  to  know,  to  acknowledge,  and  highly  to  esteem  him, 
his  titles,  attributes,  ordinances,  word,  works,  and  whatsoever  he  is  pleased 
to  make  himself  known  by  ;  and  to  glorify  him  in  thought,  word  and  deed  ; 
that  he  would  prevent  and  remove  atheism,  ignorance,  idolatry,  profane- 
ness,  and  whatsoever  is  dishonorable  to  him  ;  and,  by  his  overruling 
providence,  direct  and  dispose  all  things  to  his  own  glory. 

He  then  quoted  Dr.  Beeclier's  sermon: 

When  he  pours  the  daylight  of  omniscience  upon  the  soul,  and  comes  to 
search  out  what  is  amiss,  and  put  in  order  that  which  is  out  of  the  way, 
what  impediment  to  obedience  does  he  find  to  be  removed,  and  what  work 
does  he  perform  ?  He  finds  only  the  will  perverted,  and  obstinately 
persisting  in  its  sinful  choice  ;  and  in  the  day  of  his  power  all  he  accom- 
plishes is  to  make  the  sinner  willing.  — p.  31. 

The  idea  here  conveyed  is,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  makes  a 
sinner  willing  in  no  other  way  than  by  presenting  truth  to 


i 

TRIAL    BEFORE    TRESBYTERY.  153 

his  mind  in  a  clearer  manner  tliun  the  preacher  can  exhibit 
it.     He  here  read  from  the  sermon,  p.  22. 

So  long  as  the  sinner  is  able  and  willing  to  obey,  there  can  be  no  sin  ; 
and  the  moment  the  ability  of  obedience  ceases,  the  commission  of  sin 
becomes  impossible. 

Dr.  Beecher  here  teaches  Perfection  in  two  ways.  For  it 
follows  that  Avlien  any  creature  has  rendered  himself  incapable 
of  doing  good  he  can  commit  no  sin.  And,  according  to  this 
doctrine,  the  devils  must  be  perfectly  sinless,  ever  since  the 
first  sin  which  they  committed ;  for  I  suppos6  none  will  deny 
that  by  their  first  sin  they  rendered  themselves  incapable  of 
good :  and,  the  ability  ceasing,  all  sin  ceased  likewise.  But 
Dr.  .Beecher,  in  the  first  part  of  his  sermon,  maintains  that 
the  sinner  is  naturally  able  to  keep  the  whole  law  of  God, 
and  here  he  declares  that  the  Spirit  makes  him  willing  to  do 
it,  and  that  while  he  is  both  able  and  willing  there  can  be  no 
sin.  And  how  can  there  be  ?  The  conclusion  is  perfectly 
logical.  It  is  entirely  irrefragable,  and  follows  by  necessary 
consequence  from  the  premises. 

And,  on  this  part  of  my  subject,  I  will  turn  to  that  part  of 
the  specification  which  declares  that  some  of  the  Perfectionists 
have  been  inmates  of  Lane  Seminary ;  and  I  now  call  upon 
the  clerk  to  read  the  testimony  which  has  been  taken  before 
Presbytery,  and  recorded,  touching  that  fact. 

The  testimony  was  here  read  accordingly.  [See  it  on 
pp.  95,  96,  100,  101,  102,  103,  109,  110,  111.] 

After  listening  to  this  testimony,  I  suppose  there  can  ])e 
no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  the  statement,  that  some  of  the 
Perfectionists  were  inmates  of  Lane  Seminary.  For,  if  this 
was  not  the  fiict,  and  if  the  leaven  of  that  heresy  w^as  not 
operating  there,  and  if  no  fear  was  entertained  that  it  might 


154  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

increase,  and  thereby  affect  tlie  interests  of  that  institution, 
wliy  was  it  necessary  for  Dr.  Beecher  to  give  his  students  a 
warning  against  it  7  For  it  seems  that  the  letter  to  Weld  was 
not  known  in  the  seminary.  The  witnesses  met  with  it 
elsewhere.  And  what  says  Mr.  Weed  ?  That  although  the 
students  expressed  no  decided  opinion  in  favor  of  that  sys- 
tem in  presence  of  Dr.  Beecher,  yet  he  knew  of  many  who 
avowed  to  each  other  the  opinion  that  every  exercise  of  the 
mind  was  either  entirely  holy  or  entirely  sinful.  If  we  are 
to  credit  his  word, —  and  no  one  thinks  of  doubting  it, —  then 
the  fact  is  established,  not  only  from  Dr.  Beecher's  finding  it 
necessary  to  deliver  a  set  lecture  in  opposition  to  those  senti- 
ments, but  from  the  fact  that  many  of  the  students  avowed 
them.  No  one  will  deny  the  propriety  of  young  men  in  a 
theological  seminary  investigating  every  subject  of  a  theolog- 
ical kind.  That  is  all  right  and  proper.  But  when  we  have 
it  in  evidence  that  many  of  them  received  and  avowed  the 
sentiment,  that  every  exercise  of  the  mind  is  either  entirely 
holy  or  entirely  sinful,  does  it  not  show  that  they  denied  any 
such  warfare  in  the  bosom  of  a  Christian  as  is  spoken  of  in 
the  Confession  of  Faith  and  in  the  Scriptures  7  God  forbid 
that  I  should  speak  a  word  against  Christian  Perfection  !  I 
well  know  that  it  is  one  of  the  precious  doctrines  of  the 
Bible ;  and,  when  properly  understood,  it  is  what  I  long  to 
feel  for  myself,  and  to  see  far  more  prevalent  than  it  is 
among  us.  But  while  I  see  Perfection  enjoined  in  the  Bible, 
and  while  I  hear  holy  men  earnestly  praying  for  its  attain- 
ment, and  while  I  can  say  that  I  delight  in  the  law  of  God 
after  the  inward  man,  I  am  nevertheless  constrained  to  add, 
that  I  see  another  law  in  my  members  which  wars  against 
this  law  of  my  mind.  I  can  say  that  to  will  is  present  with 
me  ;  but  how  to  perform  that  which  is  good  I  find  not.     0. 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  155 

wretched  man  that  I  am, —  >Yho  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body 
of  this  death  ?  Noav,  I  would  ask,  if  I  had  full  ability  before 
I  was  converted,  what  has  become  of  it  ?  I  have  it  not  now. 
Even  when  I  will,  I  cannot  perform.  There  is  a  law  in  my 
members  which 'wars  against  the  law  in  my  mind,  and  l)rings 
me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members  ; 
and  who  shall  deliver  me  7  I  thank  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.  We  are  complete  in  him.  And  this  is 
Christian  Perfection  ;  but  not  that  Perfection  which  is  taught 
ill  this  sermon,  or  held  by  the  students  in  Lane  Seminary,  or 
])y  the  Perfectionists  of  New  Haven. 

With  respect  to  these  Perfectionists,  let  me  do  them  justice. 
They  are,  for  the  most  part,  highly  talented  men,  and  men 
of  amiable  dispositions ;  but  they  are  misguided.  And  how 
came  they  to  be  misguided  7  I  shall  show.  The  fact  that 
such  young  men  were  in  Lane  Seminary  1  have  not  charged 
as  a  crime  upon  Dr.  Beecher.  Can  a  professor  hinder  the 
presence  of  corrupt  students  among  the  young  men  under  his 
charge  7  It  is,  indeed,  a  serious  question,  whether  such 
ought  to  be  excluded.  Dr.  Mason  was  the  only  man 
who  ever  expelled  a  student  from  a  theological  institution  for 
holding  heretical  opinions.  And  has  it  not  been  made  a  sub- 
ject of  grave  complaint,  that  there  were  in  Princeton  Semi- 
nary some  who  came  there  with  the  express  view  of  making 
proselytes  to  false  doctrine  7  I  never  alleged  it  as  any  offence 
in  Dr.  Beecher.  And  I  introduced  it  merely  to  show  that 
Dr.  Beecher's  sentiments,  whatever  he  might  have  intended^ 
do  lead  directly  to  such  results.  No  man  will  pretend  to 
blame  liim  for  warning  his  students  against  sentiments,  or  for 
delivering  a  set  lecture  in  opposition  to  them.  But  where  is 
the  consistency  of  such  a  cour*3  7  lie  advocates  a  theory 
which  naturally  leads  to  this ;  a  theory  which  men  do  under- 


156  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

stand ;  which  men  not  only  of  cultivated  minds,  but  of  very 
devotional  feeling,  have  understood,  and  haye  perceived  that 
it  does  lead  to  such  consequences.  If  Dr.  Beecher  had  come 
plainly  up  and  openly  renounced  those  doctrines  to  which  his 
system  led, —  if  he  had  declared,  with  manly  frankness,  that, 
though  he  had  been  the  unhappy  instrument  of  leading  those 
who  confided  in  him  to  the  adoption  of  such  opinions,  he 
nevertheless  repudiated  and  condemned  them, —  this  would 
have  been  consistent  and  praiseworthy.  But,  when  he  suf- 
fered his  sentiments  still  to  stand  unobliterated  and  not 
denied  in  the  text  of  his  sermon,  and  then  proceeded  to  warn 
these  young  men  against  that  which  was  the  necessary  con- 
sequence, it  was,  to  say  the  least,  not  a  very  consistent 
course.  All  can  see,  who  have  eyes  to  see,  the  perfect 
incongruity. 

We  heard  a  good  deal  yesterday  concerning  what  these 
Perfectionists  hold.  They  publish  a  newspaper  called  The 
Perfectionist,  the  editors  of  which,  Messrs.  Whitmore  and 
Buckingham,  are  responsible  for  everything  that  appears  in 
it.  Let  these  gentlemen  speak  for  themselves.  Here  Dr. 
Wilson  read  the  following  quotation : 

We  believe  the  Gospel  is  emphatically  glad  tidings  of  redemption  from 
sin,  and  Christianity  is  distinguished  from  the  dispensation  which  preceded 
it  chiefly  by  the  fact  that  it  brings  in  everlasting  righteousness.      Hence  : 

We  believe  that  sinners  are»not  Christians  :  we  object  not  to  calling  some 
of  them  Jewish  saints,  or  sinful  believers,  or  unconverted  disciples,  or  ser- 
vants of  God,  as  distinguished  from  sons  ;  but  we  affirm  that  they  are  out 
of  Christ  ;  for  "  he  that  abideth  in  him  sinneth  not  ;  he  that  sinneth  hath 
not  seen  him,  neither  known  him." 

Now,  it  is  proper  to  know  how  these  young  brethren  (I 
still  call  them  brethren,  for  they  are  men  of  much  mind  and 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  157 

talent,  and  in  many  respects  of  good  feeling)  should  fall  into 
sentiments  like  these,  and  should  be  so  confident  in  the  main- 
taining of  them.  [The  same  confidence  that  was  displayed 
thirty  years  ago  by  the  Shakers,  in  maintaining  theirs.] 
They  -will  tell  you.     Here  Dr.  Wilson  read  as  follows : 

COLLOQUY.  —  NO.  1. 

B.  —  I  understand  you  profess  to  be  perfect,  —  how  is  this  ? 

Ansivcr.  —  Christ  is  made  unto  me  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification 
and  redemption.  In  the  Lord  have  I  righteousness  and  strength.  I  will 
greatly  rejoice  in  the  Lord,  my  soul  shall  be  joyful  in  my  God  ;  for  he  hath 
clothed  me  with  the  garments  of  salvation,  he  hath  covered  me  with  a  robo 
of  righteousness.  We  are  complete  or  perfect  in  Him.  —  1  Cor.  1  :  80. 
Isa.  45  :  24  ;  Gl  :  10.     Col.  2  :  10. 

B.  —  But  don't  you  think  we  ought  to  have  a  righteousness  of  our  own  ? 

Ans.  —  All  ouu  righteousnesses  arc  as  filthy  rags.  For  they,  being  igno- 
rant of  God's  righteousness,  and  going  about  to  establish  their  own  right- 
eousness, have  not  submitted  themselves  to  the  righteousness  of  God.  Not 
having  mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  the  law,  but  that  which  is 
through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith.  — 
Isa.  64  :  .6.     Rom.  10  :  3.     Phil.  3  :  9. 

B.  —  I  have  always  understood  that  there  is  no  perfection  in  this  life. 

Ans.  —  Herein  is  our  love  made  perfect,  that  we  may  have  holiness  in 
the  day  of  judgment ;  because  as  he  [Christ]  is,  so  are  we  in  this  world. 
Ye  are  witnesses,  and  God  also,  how  holily  and  justly  and  undlam- 
ABLY  we  behaved  ourselves  among  you  that  believe.  Be  ye  followers  of 
me,  even  as  I  also  am  of  Christ.  As  many  of  us  as  be  perfect  be  thus 
minded.— 1  John  4  :  17.  1  Thess.  2 :  10.  1  Cot.  11:  1.  Phil.  3: 
15—17. 

B. — But  don't  you  think  it  savors  of  pride  to  say  you  live  without 


sin 


Ans. — It  is  the  LorcPs  doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes.  Not 
that  we  are  sufficient  of  ourselves  to  thi7ik  anything  as  of  ourselves  ;  but 
our  sufficiency  is  of  God.  I  am  crucified  with  Christ ;  nevertheless  I  live, 
yet  NOT  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me.  Lord,  thou  wilt  ordain  peace  for  us  ; 
for  THOU  hast  wrought  all  our  works  in  us.  By  the  grace  of  God  I  am 
that  I  am.  Not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.  In  God  we  boast  all 
the  day  long,  and  praise  his  name  forever.  What  have  we  that  we  have 
VOL.  III.  11 


158  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

not  received  ?  now,  if  we  receive  all  as  a  free  gift,  why  should  we  glory,  as 
if  we  had  not  received  it?  —Matt.  21  :  42.  2  Cor.  3  :  5.  Gal.  2  :  20. 
Isa.  26  :  12.     1  Cor.  15  :  10.    Eph.  2  :  3.     Psal.  54  :  8.     1  Cor.  4 :  7. 

B.  —  Admitting  that  you  are  free  from  sin,  would  it  not  be  better  to 
avoid  professing  it  ? 

j_ns.  — With  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness,  and  with  the 
mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation.  Go  home  to  thy  friends  and 
tell  them  how  great  things  the  Lord  hath  done  for  thee,  and  hath  had  com- 
passion on  thee.  And  he  went  his  way,  and  published  throughout  the 
whole  city  how  great  things  Jesus  had  done  unto  him.  No  man,  when  he 
hath  lighted  a  candle,  covereth  it  with  a  vessel,  or  putteth  it  under  a  bed  ; 
but  setteth  it  on  a  candlestick,  that  they  which  enter  in  may  see  the  light. 
I  have  not  hid  thy  righteousness  within  my  heart.  I  have  declared  thy 
faithfulness  and  thy  salvation  ;  I  have  not  concealed  thy  loving-kindness 
and  thy  truth  from  the  great  congregation.  — Rom.  10  :  10.  Mark  5  :  19. 
Luke  8  :  16,  39.     Ps.  50  :  10 

This  speaks  language  which  cannot  be  misunderstood. 
Whatever  may  be  their  conceptions  with  respect  to  the 
Reformation,  they  give  the  Reformers  no  credit  save  for  hav- 
ing produced  a  reform  in  that  which  was  an ti- Christianity  ; 
and  they  assert  that  God  then  raised  up  others  who  have  pro- 
duced a  true  reformation,  and  who  have  carried  it  on  until 
this  day,  when  it  has  issued  in  that  new  divinity,  of  which  we 
have  all  heard  so  much.  This  new  divinity,  it  seems,  accord- 
ing to  their  own  account,  was  the  thing  which  gave  them  the 
first  stepping-stone ;  and  no  wonder, —  for,  if  the  premises  be 
true,  their  argument  from  them  is  correct.  If  it  is  true  that 
the  sinner  is  able  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God,  and  if 
the  Spirit  makes  him  willing  to  keep  them,  there  can  be  no 
sin.  The  inference  is  most  clear  and  logical ;  and,  if  I  believed 
the  first  position,  I  would  go  the  whole ;  nor  can  there  be  any 
consistency  in  doing  otherwise.  The  friends  of  the  new 
school  must  either  return  and  take  up  the  exploded  doctrine 
of  human  inability,  or  carry  out  the  opposite  scheme,  and 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  159 

avow  themselves  Perfectionists.  Let  them  publicly  abandon 
their  whole  system ;  or  let  them  go  forward  like  honest  men, 
and  boldly  cany  it  out  to  its  results. 

Lest  it  should  be  supposed  that  the  Perfectionists  have 
done  Dr.  Beecher  injustice,  by  associating  his  name  with 
tliat  of  Mr.  Finney,  I  will  show  how  his  course  was  viewed 
in  New  England,  by  some  quotations  from  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Hand : 

Another  reason  why  you  are  reckoned  as  a  decisive  advocate  of  new 
principles  is,  the  associations  you  have  voluntarily  formed.  And  here  we 
judge  according  to  the  common  maxim,  that  a  man  is  known  by  the  com- 
pany he  keeps,  —  p.  12. 

Some  years  ago,  but  after  Dr.  Taylor  had  made  himself  conspicuous  as  a 
theorizer  in  theology.  Dr.  Beecher  had  occasion  to  be  absent  a  few  weeks 
from  his  people,  in  a  time  of  religious  excitement ;  and  he  put  Dr.  Taylor  in 
his  place,  to  preach  and ' '  conduct  the  revival. ' '  Dr.  Taylor  did  not  harshly 
obtrude  his  new  theories  upon  the  people  at  that  time  ;  but  Dr.  Beecher  was 
considered,  by  discerning  men,  under  all  the  ciixumstances  of  the  times, 
as  giving  distinct  evidence  of  partiality  for  his  views.  When  the  first  pro- 
tracted meeting  in  Massachusetts  was  held  at  Boston,  Dr.  Taylor  did  a 
large  portion  of  the  preaching,  and  was  the  only  minister  from  abroad  who 
took  part  in  the  public  exercises.  When  Dr.  Beecher  was  in  New  York,  on 
his  way  to  the  West,  he  is  understood  to  have  taken  frequent  occasion  to 
extol  Dr.  Taylor,  as  one  of  the  first  theologians  of  the  age.  And  they  who 
are  acquainted  with  consultations,  correspondence  and  other  indications 
of  intimacy,  have  long  told  us  that  these  two  gentlemen  were  united  in 
pi'omoting  the  same  theological  views.  —  p.  13. 

Now,  sir,  who  was  Mr.  Finney's  principal  adviser,  coadjutor  and  confi- 
dential friend,  from  his  coming  to  Boston  till  he  finally  left  it  ?  I  answer, 
without  hesitation.  Dr.  Beecher.  Who  originated  the  invitation,  I  know 
not.  It  was  extended  by  Union  Church,  or  their  agents.  Mr.  F.  replied, 
"  I  am  ready  to  go  to  Boston,  if  the  ministering  brethren  are  prepared  to 
receive  me  ;  otherwise,  I  must  decline."  The  question  was  submitted  to 
the  pastors  assembled.  No  very  decisive  answer  was  given  by  most,  I 
believe  ;  but  Drs.  Beecher  and  Wisner  expressed  their  doubts  of  the  expe- 
diency of  the  measure.  But  their  doubts  were  soon  after  removed  ;  and 
he  came,  with  their  express  approbation,  and  the  acquiescence  of  others. 


160  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

He  was  immediately  made  the  public  preacher  for  the  whole  Orthodox  Con- 
gregational interest  in  Boston,  and  a  contribution  was  levied  upon  the 
churches  to  support  his  family  for  six  months.  He  held  public  evening 
meetings,  generally  twice  a  week,  in  a  large  and  central  house.  These 
meetings  were  uniformly  notified  in  the  several  congregations  on  the  Sab- 
bath. Some  of  the  pastors  usually  attended  with  him,  took  part  in  the 
exercises,  gave  his  notices,  and  appeared  to  act  in  perfect  concert  with 
him,  though  he  was  always  the  preacher.  In  these  movements,  Drs. 
Beecher  and  Wisner  were  more  prominent  and  active  than  all  the  others  ; 
and  Dr.  Beecher  repeatedly  declared  in  public  his  full  accordance  with 
views  which  had  been  advanced.  — p.  14. 

I  have  read  this  to  show  that  it  is  not  without  reason  Dr. 
Beecher  was  connected  by  the  Perfectionists  with  Dr.  Taylor 
and  Mr.  Finney.  The  system  held  by  them  all  is  substan- 
tially the  same,  though  they  do  not  all  express  it  so  fully  as 
Mr.  Finney  and  Dr.  Taylor.  The  testimony  we  have  heard 
has  established  the  fact,  that  some  of  the  Perfectionists  were 
students  in  Lane  Seminary.  Dr.  Beecher's  own  book  has 
established  the  2d  specification.  It  is  now  with  the  court  to 
see  what  is  the  nature  and  amount  of  my  charge.  I  do  not 
blame  him  that  such  students  were  there ;  nor  do  I  charge 
him  with  being  a  Perfectionist,  for  he  is  not  aware  of  it.  I 
merely  charge  him  with  preaching  sentiments  from  which 
those  doctrines  naturally  flow.  And  if  these  sentiments  are 
inconsistent  with  our  standards,  then  let  Dr.  Beecher  say 
which  of  the  two  he  renounces,  and  to  which  he  adheres. 

The  Presbytery  here  took  a  short  recess. 


FOURTH   CHARGE. 


Dr.  Wilson  now  read  the  4th  charge,  and  1st  specifi- 
cation. [See  it  on  p.  89.]  He  said  that  he  was  not  pre- 
pared to  deny  this  when  he  wrote  the  charge ;  but  he  was 
now  fully  prepared,  from  historical  evidence,  to  do  so. 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  161 

I  will  now  give  a  definition  of  slander.  The  verb  means 
to  belie,  to  censure  falsely.  The  noun  means  false  invective, 
disgrace,  reproach,  disreputation,  ill-name.  A  slanderer  is 
one  who  belies  another,  who  lays  false  charges  upon  another. 
These  are  the  definitions  of  Dr.  Johnson ;  and  I  will  now 
reduce  them  all  to  a  scriptural  definition,  which  is  contained 
in  the  14th  chap,  of  Numbers,  36  and  37  verses : 

And  the  men,  which  Moses  sent  to  search  the  land,  who  returned,  and 
made  all  the  congregation  to  murmur  against  him,  by  bringing  up  a  slan- 
der upon  the  land  ;  even  those  men  that  did  bring  up  the  evil  report  upon 
the  land,  died  by  the  plague  before  the  Lord. 

Now,  I  say  that  Dr.  Beecher  has,  in  his  writings,  brought 
up  an  evil  report  upon  the  Church  of  God,  and  upon  those 
ministers  who  teach  the  doctrines  of  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
To  make  his  impression  the  deeper,  he  has  given  a  caricature 
of  their  sentiments.  Who  that  holds  the  doctrine  that  a 
sinner  is  unable  to  keep  the  law  of  God  preaches  that  men 
ought  to  engage  in  the  "  impenitent  use  of  means  "  ?  Is  not 
this  a  slander  ?  Yet,  from  what  was  read  here  yesterday,  it 
appears  that  Dr.  Beecher  continued  to  utter  this  slander,  even 
after  the  charges  had  been  tabled  against  him.  For  he  con- 
tends that  it  was  part  of  that  false  philosophy  which  was 
twisted  into  the  creeds  of  the  Reformation.  And  he  further 
states  that  revivals  have  always  flourished  where  his  doctrine 
is  preached ;  or,  if  any  have  occurred  elsewhere,  it  has  been 
where  the  old  system  has  been  mitigated  in  its  severity ;  and 
that  it  is  other  doctrines,  and  not  those  of  the  old  system, 
which,  in  such  cases,  have  been  blessed  of  God.  Sir,  this  is 
the  slander  which  has,  for  years  past,  been  cast  upon  the  old 
school, —  that  its  advocates  are  the  enemies  of  revivals,  and 
that  they  preach  doctrines  which  destroy  the  souls  of  men. 

VOL.   TIL  14^ 


162  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

What  did  we  hear  in  this  Presbytery  when  a  young  brother 
applied  for  license?  Although  his  doctrines  were  admitted 
to  be  in  accordance  with  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  his 
licensure  could  not  be  withheld,  yet  it  was  openly  declared 
that  such  doctrine  never  converted  men.  We  are  told,  by 
Dr.  Beecher,  that  where  the  doctrines  of  human  inability  to 
keep  the  commandments  of  God,  inability  to  convert  our- 
selves, inabihty  to  engage  in  any  holy  exercises,  have  been 
taught,  those  churches  have  remained  like  Egypt  by  the  side 
of  other  churches  where  the  opposite  doctrines  were  incul- 
cated. Yes,  Sir,  like  Egypt  in  its  midnight  darkness ;  like 
the  mountains  of  Gilboa,  without  dews  of  heaven,  or  fields  of 
offering;  or  like  the  valley  in  Ezekiel's  vision,  where  the 
bones  were  very  many,  and  dry,  very  dry. 

Now,  Sir.  I  ask.  What  has  been  the  true  history  of" the  re- 
vivals thus  produced  by  the  preaching  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
new  school?  It  has  been  just  what  The  Perfectionist 
stated.  Such  revivals  have  left  the  churches  cold,  barren, 
and  spiritually  dead.  Such  has  been  the  utter  sterility  ex- 
perienced in  the  State  of  New  York,  and  in  some  parts  of 
New  England,  that  all  vitahty  is  gone,  and  nothing  but  some 
new  dispensation  of  Divine  grace  can  renovate  the  face  of  the 
Church.  Sir,  what  has  been  the  history  of  these  revivals  on 
this  side  of  the  mountains,  in  our  own  region,  and  within  the 
bounds  of  our  own  Presbytery  7  Wherever  the  doctrines  of 
the  new  school  have  prevailed,  and  artificial  excitements  have 
been  got  up  among  the  churches,  there  all  vital  religion  has 
been  prostrated,  and  the  churches  sunk  into  a  state  of  death- 
like apathy  and  silence ;  just  such  as  The  Perfectionist 
informs  us  has  taken  place  on  the  other  side  of  the  moun- 
tains. But,  on  the  contrary,  where  the  doctrines  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  have  been  received  and  faithfully  preached, 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  163 

the  churches  are  growing,  arc  in  a  state  of  order  and  harmony, 
and  spiritual  health  universally  prevails.  Now,  to  bring  up 
an  evil  report  on  a  simple  individual  is  slander,  provided  the 
report  be  untrue ;  to  say,  indeed,  that  a  drunkard  is  a 
drunkard,  or  that  a  liar  is  a  liar,  is  no  slander,  however  im- 
prudent the  declaration,  under  some  circumstances,  may  be. 
But,  where  the  charge  is  made,  and  it  turns  out  to  be  utterly 
false,  it  is  the  crime  of  slander,  and  is  punished  as  such. 
But  what  is  slander  upon  an  individual,  when  compared  with 
slander  directed  against  the  whole  Church  of  God,  against  the 
orthodox  in  every  age,  against  the  blessed  apostle  who  first 
preached  the  Gospel  to  the  nations,  against  the  martyrs  who 
freely  shed  their  blood  to  confirm  it,  and  against  the  company 
of  the  reformers  who  were  ready  to  lay  down  their  lives  in 
its  defence  ?  Look,  Sir,  at  that  venerable  company  of  West- 
minster divines, —  men  whose  talents,  learning  and  piety, 
have  been  the  theme  of  just  admiration  from  their  own  age 
until  the  present  day ;  —  men  who  took  up  and  investigated 
the  whole  system  of  divine  truth, —  who  continued  to  sit  for 
six  or  seven  years,  and  who  yet,  when  they  formed  their 
book,  put  into  it  this  doctrine  of  the  inability  of  fallen  man ; 
—  a  doctrine  which,  it  is  said,  the  men  of  the  new  school 
have  completely  demolished,  and  with  respect  to  which  none, 
according  to  Dr.  Beecher,  had  ever  a  distinct  apprehension, 
so  as  to  rise  above  the  mists  by  which  the  subject  is  sur- 
rounded, till  the  time  of  Edwards,  and  those  who  have  since 
followed  the  track  he  marked  out ;  —  men  who  seem  con- 
tinually to  cry  out,  "We  are  the  men,  and  wisdom  will  die 
with  us."  If  this  is  not  bringing  up  an  evil  report  upon  the 
Church  of  God,  upon  the  Christian  ministry,  and  upon  the 
whole  body  of  those  who  are  the  friends  of  orthodoxy  in  this 


164  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

country,  I  am  quite  unable  to  conceive  what  ought  to  be  so 
denominated. 

FIFTH   CHARGE. 

Dr.  Wilsox  here  read  the  5th  charge.     [See  p.  91.] 

As  the  fact  here  charged  has  been  conceded,  I  need  refer 
to  no  proof  in  its  support.  Dr.  Beecher,  however,  objects 
to  the  introduction  of  the  word  "  kindred,"  and  has  expressed 
a  wish  that  that  word  might  be  erased.  To  this  I  shall 
make  no  objection,  and  will  only  observe  that  there  must  be 
something  very  wrong  when  people  feel  dishonored  by  their 
own  kin. 

The  Moderator  pronounced  this  remark  to  be  a  violation 
of  order. 

Dr.  Wilson  said,  if  it  was  out  of  order,  he  was  willing  it 
should  be  omitted.  He  thereupon  proceeded  to  read  the 
sixth  charge.     [See  p.  91.] 

SIXTH   CHARGE. 

He  commenced  his  remarks  on  this  charge  by  quoting 
Johnson's  definition  of  the  terms:  '''Hypocrisy^ — dissimu- 
lation in  respect  to  moral  or  religious  character ;  —  Hypo- 
crite^—  a  dissembler  in  morality  or  religion." 

Dr.  Wilson  then  read  again  the  1st  specification.  [See 
p.  91.] 

Under  this  specification  1  shall  read  from  a  document  pro- 
duced by  Dr.  Beecher  at  the  last  meeting  of  Presbytery. 
He  read  only  a  part  of  it.  I  wish  to  read  a  little  more.  It 
is  an  article  from  the  (Standard^  dated  October  20,  1832; 
and  it  is  not  over  the  signature  of  J.  L.  W.,  although  it  was 
said  yesterday  that  Dr.  Beecher  had  read  nothing  but  what 
had  these  initials  appended  to  it : 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  1G5 

JVeio  York,  Oct.   20,  1832. 
Although  I  have  not  had  the  privilege  of  much  personal  intercourse 
with  you,  yet  I  feel  as  if  I  were  intimately  acquainted  with  you.     I  am 
impelled  also  by  existing  circumstances  to  write  you,  and  hope  you  will 

.     I  pray  that  you  may  have  wisdom  and  grace  as  you  need 

to  glorify  God.  The  men  of  the  new  school  talk  much  of  love,  for- 
bearance and  peace,  when  they  are  in  the  minority,  and  wish  to  carry  their 
point ;  but  when  they  have  the  power, ,  The  friends  of  the  Re- 
deemer, however,  have  nothing  to  fear.     I  regret  that  they  should,  in  any 

instance,  have  thought  it  necessary  to  contend  against with  his  own 

weapons.     It  appears  to  me  that  we  'need  only  to  pursue  a  straight 

course,  abiding  by  the  Word  of  God  and  the  constitution  of  our  Church,  and 
leave  events  with  the  great  Head  of  the  Church.  If  we  are  in  the  minority, 
we  can  enter  our  dissent,  solemn  protest  and  remonstrance,  and  thus  pre- 
serve a  good  conscience,  and  be  protected  in  our  rights,  by  the .     I, 

for  one,  feel  less  apprehensions  than  I  did,  and  would  discountenance  any- 
thing like  the  combination,  management  and  attempts  to  overreach,  as 
practised  by  the  new  party. '  Let  us  be  firm  in  our  adherence  to  the  cause 
of  truth  and  righteousness.  Let  us  do  our  duty  as  Christians  and  as  min- 
isters of  the  Gospel,  and  we  are  under  the  broad  and  impenetrable  shield 

of  the  jiromise  of  God. If  we  are  to  be  outnumbered  and  outvoted, 

be  it  so.     has  always  had  a  majority. God  has  always  had 

his  witnesses.     The  Church  has  always  been  preserved.     Perhaps 

the  Lord  may  have  something  better  in  store  for  us  than  we  have  feared. 
Perhaps  he  will  prevent  the  spread  of  error  in  that  branch  of  his  Church 

to  which  we  belong.     It  may  be  that shall  not  have  a  majority  in 

.     Many  in  this  region  who  were  on  the  fence,  who  were  taken  with 

their  apparent  zeal  and  devotedness,  and  felt  inclined  to  favor  their  meas- 
ures, have  had  their  eyes  opened,  have  seen  the  tendency  of  their  meas- 
ures, and  have  been  disgusted  with  the  men.  They  begin  to  feel  the 
importance  of  guarding  our  standards,  and  are  convinced  that  the  matter 

of  difference  between is  something  more  than  a  question  about 

words. The  sessions  of  our  Synod  have  just  closed.     The  doings 

in  several  cases  were  such  as  to  try  our  strength.  We  have  a  large  and 
decided  majority  of  old-school  men.  The  opening  sermon  was  preached  by 
a  member  from  the  country,  Mr.  Thompson,  who  was  in  the  assembly  last 
spring.     It  was  honest,  bold  and  faithful,  —  much  more  so  than  we  were 

prepared  to  hear. Most  of  our  time  was  occupied  in  rectifying  the 

irregularities  of  the  od  Presbytery.     When  that  Presbytery  was  formed. 


166  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

we  expected  strange  proceedings  ;  but  our  expectations  have  been  far 
exceeded.  They  have  held  thirty-five  meetings  during  the  year,  and  have 
licensed  and  ordained  a  very  large  number  of  men. 

In  the  judgment  of  the  Synod,  expressed  by  a  decided  vote,  they  have 
violated  the  constitution  in  three  instances,  namely  :  1.  In  dismissing  a 
private  member  of  the  Church,  a  female,  over  the  heads  of  the  Session. 

The  Presbytery  gave  her  a  dismission  and  letter  of  recommendation 

to  another  church,  which  church  would  not  receive  her.  So  she  is  still 
under  their  care. 

2.  In  receiving  Mr.  Leavitt,  of  this  city,  editor  of  the  Evangelist, 
without  any  credentials  whatever.  He  was  introduced  to  the  Presbytery 
\)j  Dr.  Cox,  and  received  on  their  personal  knowledge  of  him,  without  a 
dismission  from  his  association  or  dismissing  council. 

3.  In   receiving  Dr.  Beecher,  without  the  requisite  credentials,  and 

by  letter,  and  dismissing  him  to Presbytery,  without  his  appearing 

before  them  at  all. He  sent  a  written  subscription  to  the  questions 

in  our  book,  with  a  request  to  be  received  ;  also  a  recommendation  from 
the  association  to  which  he  belonged  ;  but  not  from  the  dismissing  council, 
which  is  the  only  ecclesiastical  body  which  could  give  him  credentials.    Yet 

they  received  him.     He  was  thus Into  a  Presbyterian,  that  he  might 

accept  his  call,  and  become  Professor  in  the  Lane  Seminary.  They  knew 
he  did  not  intend  to  reside  within  their  bounds  ;  but  to  accommodate  him, 

and  prevent ,  they  received  and  dismissed  himiyi  transitu.    

They  were  very  sensitive,  and  affected  to  consider  our  objections  to  their 
proceedings  an  attack  upon  Dr.  Beecher,  which  was  furthest  from  our  inten- 
tions. It  was  not  his  fault  that  they  acted  unconstitutionally.  But  you 
perceive  the  tendency  of  such  proceedings. 

The  committee  appointed, ,  to  examine  their  records,  being  of 

their  own  school,  reported  favorably  ;  but,  in  their  statistical  report,  we 
learned  the  fact,  in  the  case  of  Dr.  B.,  and  objected. After  consid- 
erable discussion,  a  special  committee  was  appointed  to  examine  their 

records,  who  brought  their  doings  to  light. Two  of  their  members 

were  refused  admission  into —  Presbytery,  and  were  not  permitted  to 

preach  in  the  vacant  churches  within  their  bounds. These  are  try- 
ing times,  and  call  for  union  and  concert  of  prayer.  I  desire  to  feel  that 
our  hope  is  in  God  alone.  We  need  his  guidance  and  protection  ;  and 
having  that,  we  have  nothing  to  fear. 

A  member  of  the  court  here  inquired  whether  this  paper 
had  any  signature. 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  167 

Dr.  Wilson  replied  that  it  had  not.  and  that  he  should 
not  have  been  at  liberty  to  produce  it,  had  not  Dr.  Beecher 
been  permitted  to  do  so  first.  Dr.  Wilson  then  read  the  2d 
specification.     [See  p.  91.] 

With  respect  to  this,  I  only  need  to  remark,  that  what  I 
read  under  the  charge  of  slander  shows  conclusively  that  Dr. 
Eeecher  does  consider  the  difference  of  doctrine  to  be  material 
and  essential ;  that  it  is  not  a  mere  logomachy,  nor  is  there  a 
mere  shade  of  difference  between  the  two  systems.  Far  from 
it.  For  he  tells  us  that  one  of  these  systems  of  doctrine 
practically  eclipses  the  glory  of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness, 
and  has  done  more  to  hinder  the  salvation  of  souls  than  any- 
thing else  in  the  Church  ;  while  the  other  is  blessed  of  heaven, 
and  spreads  light  and  life  wherever  it  goes.  Yet,  while  he 
thus  impugns  the  standards  of  our  Church,  and  places  the 
two  doctrines  in  so  strong  contrast,  he  does  —  what  7  I  do 
not  say  that  he  adopts  our  standards,  because  I  have  no  proof 
that  he  ever  has  adopted  them.  But  I  do  say,  that  if  he 
does  adopt  them,  he  is  guilty  of  hypocrisy  ;  and  no  man  can 
exonerate  him  from  the  charge.  For  he  must  be  a  hypocrite 
who  professes  cordially  to  adopt  that  which  he  disbelieves, 
impugns,  and  does  his,  best  to  bring  into  disrepute. 

Dr.  Wilson  then  read  the  3d  specification.     [See  p.  91.] 

Under  this  specification  I  call  for  the  reading  of  the  testi- 
mony which  has  been  taken  before  this  court,  touching  the 
declarations  made  by  Dr.  Beecher  respecting  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  when  he  stood  before  the  Synod. 

The  testimony  was  read  accordingly.  [See  it  on  pp.  93, 
94,  &c.] 

The  specification  under  which  this  testimony  is  introduced 
comes  under  the  charge  of  dissimulation ;  and  it  seems,  from 
the  evidence,  that  Dr.  Beecher  haa  seen  a  time  when  he 


168  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

could  not  adopt  our  standards  fully.  I  do  not  know  when 
this  time  was,  for  I  never  have  been  able  to  draw  that  out  of 
him.  Dr.  Beecher  himself  stated,  on  a  former  occasion,  that 
he  commenced  his  ministry  on  Long  Island  by  adopting  the 
Confession  of  Faith  as  a  Presbyterian  minister ;  that  he  then 
removed  into  New  England,  and  took  the  charge  of  a  Con- 
gregational Church,  but  without  any  change  in  his  religious 
sentiments.  The  Confession  of  Faith  was  still  his  creed,  and 
although  he  acted  under  the  provisions  of  the  Plan  of  Union, 
he  still  approved  the  form  of  government  adopted  and  prac- 
tised in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  He  afterward  left  the 
Congregational  Churches,  and  entered  the  body  to  which  we 
belong.  At  this  time,  it  seems,  he  still  professed  to  adhere 
to  our  standards,  but  it  was  under  certain  explanations  of  the 
terms  there  used.  In  the  sermon  which  has  been  read  before 
you,  he  admits  that  the  language  of  the  Reformers  spoke  of 
man's  inability,  but  that  this  language  was  not  understood, 
and  that,  therefore,  he  has  a  right  of  interpretation,  inasmuch 
as  the  Church  has  interpreted  her  own  creed.  Admitting 
that  he  did  adopt  the  standards  fully,  with  this  right  of  ex- 
planation, still,  when  his  right  to  explain  was  called  in 
question,  when  the  language  of  his  sermons  was  made  a  sub- 
ject of  controversy,  when  he  came  before  Synod  in  conse^ 
quence,  and  found  himself  in  peculiar  circumstances,  sur- 
rounded by  a  large  popular  assembly,  and  placed  before  an 
ecclesiastical  body  the  complexion  of  which  was  well  known, 
and  a  majority  of  whose  members  adhered  to  the  standards  in 
their  literal  sense  and  obvious  meaning,  Dr.  Beecher  made 
those  statements  respecting  his  belief  in  our  Confession  of 
Faith  which  have  been  given  in  testimony  before  you.  He 
made  them,  the  witnesses  say,  with  an  emphasis  peculiarly 
impressive.     One  witness  spoke  of  the  waving  of  his  hand, 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  169 

■\vliile  another  tells  you  that  he  clasped  the  book  to  his  bosom 
with  a  gesticulation  that  was  very  unusual  to  him,  and  then 
declared,  in  the  form  of  an  oath,  that  he  believed  those 
standards  to  contain  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing 
but  the  truth.  This  took  place  in  the  autumn  of  1833  ;  and 
now,  in  the  spring  of  1835,  what  does  Dr.  Beecher  publish  7 
Why,  he  says,  with  respect  to  the  creeds  of  the  Reformers, 
and  not  excepting  his  own  creed,  that  on  some  topics  they 
were  more  full  than  the  proportion  of  faith  would  require  at 
this  day  ;  while,  as  a  means  of  popular  instruction  and  the 
exposition  of  truth,  their  language  falls  far^  short  of  what  is 
called  for  by  the  times  in  which  we  live. 

Now,  I  ask.  Where  is  the  man  in  this  house,  who,  upon  his 
solemn  oath,  can  state  that  he  believes  this  Confession  of 
Faith  to  contain  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth?  For  myself,  I  can  say,  unhesitatingly,  that  it 
does  contain  the  truth;  and  further,  that,  according  to  my 
knowledge,  it  is  the  most  perfect  system  of  doctrine  which  has 
ever  been  compiled  by  human  effort.  Yet  I  could  not  say 
that  it  contains  nothing  but  the  truth,  although  there  is  noth- 
ing in  it  which  I  object  to.  Still  less  can  I  say  that  it  con- 
tains the  whole  truth,  for  I  know  that  it  docs  not.  It  is 
obvious,  therefore,  that  the  declaration  made  by  Dr.  Beecher, 
before  the  Synod,  was  made  in  a  reckless  manner.  And, 
taking  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  into  view, — remember- 
ing where  he  stood,  and  that  his  standing  and  orthodoxy  as  a 
Christian  minister  were  at  stake,  —  it  appears  to  me  equally 
obvious  that  the  declaration  was  made  for  popular  effect.  And 
what  he  has  since  published  shows  that  he  believes  our  stand- 
ards to  be  far  short  of  what  is  called  for  by  the  exigency  of 
our  times  ;  and,  of  course,  that  it  does  not  contain  the  whole 
truth. 

VOL.  HI.  15 


170  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

[Dr.  Beecher  here  inquired  whether  the  language  last  re- 
ferred to  had  been  by  him  applied  to  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

Dr.  Wilson  replied  that  he  so  understood  it.] 

Dr.  WiLSOX  proceeded  to  read  again  extracts  from  Dr. 
Beecher's  book,  entitled,  "The  Causes  and  Remedy  of 
Scepticism."     [Already  quoted.     See  vol.  i.  p.  65.] 

Here,  said  Dr.  Wilson,  he  is  attempting  to  show  that  the 
very  creeds  of  the  Reformation  are  calculated  to  produce 
scepticism.  He  says  that  they  are  mere  skeletons.  What 
then,  becomes  of  his  declaration,  that  they  contain  the  whole 
truth  ?  And  here  I  was  going  to  stop ;  but  I  am  led  to 
remark,  in  general,  that  Dr.  Beecher  is  in  the  habit  of  mak- 
ing reckless  declarations.  To  show  this,  I  will  take  his 
lecture  on  the  cause  of  scepticism.  AYhen  speaking  of  the 
French  Revolution  and  its  effect 

[Here  Mr.  Brainerd  interposed,  and  observed  that  this  was 
not  relevant  to  the  case.  Dr.  Beecher  was  not  on  trial  for 
making  reckless  declarations.] 

Dr.  Wilson  said  that  he  did  not  care  about  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  passage.  It  would  only  go  to  show  that  the 
sweeping  declarations  of  Dr.  Beecher  were  intended  for  popu- 
lar effect.  They  must  be  made  either  without  intention, —  and 
that  would  argue  what  Dr.  Wilson  never  should  charge  upon 
Dr.  Beecher,  namely,  a  want  of  sense, —  or,  they  must  be 
made,  as  he  had  averred,  for  the  purpose  of  producing  popu- 
lar effect ;  and  that  was  all  he  had  charged  under  this  head. 

Dr.  Wilson  then  read  the  4th  specification.     [See  p.  91.] 
On  this  I  shall  merely  say,  that  when  you  look  at  Dr. 
Beecher's  sermons,  and  then  consider  the  facts  in  connection 
Avith  the  3d  specification,  how  can  you  conclude  otherwise 
than  that  his  course  exhibits  dissimulation  ? 

I  shall  now  close  the  argument,  by  referring  the  court  to  the 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  171 

decision  of  the  Synod  of  Oliio,  ^vlHcll  was  made  in  reference 
to  these  very  difficulties ;  not  as  they  have  been  occasioned 
by  Dr.  Bcccher's  preaching  and  pubhcations,  but  elsewhere, 
as  produced  by  others  holding  the  same  sentiments.  The 
Synod  made  a  record  on  their  minutes,  and  gave  it  as  an 
injunction  upon  all  the  Presbyteries  under  their  care,  that 
persons  using  doubtful  language,  or  phrases  which  were  new, 
and  which  caused  disturbance  in  the  Church,  should  be  subjects 
of  discipline. 

In  the  next  place,  I  shall  present  to  the  court  Dr.  Beech- 
er's  creed,  as  contained  in  his  select  system.  It  consists  of 
eleven  articles,  and  may  be  found  in  Dr.  Beecher's  reply  to 
the  Christian  Examiner.  The  Christian  Examiner,  let 
it  be  remembered,  is  a  Unitarian  paper,  and  the  Unitarians 
claim  all  the  articles  of  the  creed  except  two.  And  such  was 
the  clearness  of  the  article  in  which  this  claim  was  advanced, 
so  strong  and  so  conclusive  were  the  arguments  it  contained, 
that  Dr.  Beecher  was  oblio;ed  to  come  out  in  a  lono;  and 
labored  reply.     The  articles  of  the  creed  are  these  : 

men  are  "free  agents  ;  in  the  possession  of  such  faculties,  and  placed 

in  such  circumstances,  as  to  render  it  practicable  for  them  to  do  whatever 
God  requires  ;  reasonable  that  he  should  require  it ;  and  fit  that  he  should 
inflict,  literally,  the  entire  penalty  of  disobedience.  Such  ability  is  here 
intended  as  lays  a  perfect  foundation  for  government,  and  for  rewai'ds  and 
punishments  according  to  deeds. 

And  now  I  ask,  Is  there  here  to  be  found  one  single  dis- 
tinctive feature  which  belongs  exclusively  to  that  system  of 
doctrine  which  is  taught  in  our  standards  ?  There  are,  to  be 
sure,  sentiments  wh^cli  are  held  in  common  ;  and  the  last, 
especially,  is  received  by  Arminians,  Catholics,  Universalists, 
and  almost  all  other  sects,  the  Unitarians  excepted.  But 
here  is  not  one  single  distinctive  feature  of  the  Calvinistic 


172  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

system.  The  creed  may  very  appropriately  be  called  a  select 
system,  -wliicli  some  of  all  sects  receive,  and  which  some  of  all 
sects  reject.  I  will  now  read  Dr.  Beecher's  note  appended  to 
his  sermon  on  this  select  system. 

[Mr.  Brainerd  here  inquired  whether  Dr.  Beecher  had 
set  forth  these  eleven  articles  as  the  fundamental  principles 
of  Christianity,  or  as  expressing  the  whole  of  his  own  creed.] 

Dr.  Wilson  replied,  that  he  did  not  care  whether  they 
contained  his  entire  creed  or  not.  These  were -the  articles  as 
he  had  given  them  in  his  sermon.  Dr.  "Wilson  then  read  the 
note,  as  follows  : 

I  choose  to  call  these  cloctrlnes  the  evangelical  system,  not  only  because 
I  believe  them  to  be  the  Gospel,  but  because  no  man,  oi'  denomination,  has 
held  them  so  exclusively  as  to  render  it  proper  to  designate  them  by  the 
name  of  an  individual  or  a  sect.  It  is  a  select  system,  which  some  of 
almost  every  denomination  hold,  and  some  reject  ;  and  which  ought  to  be 
characterized  by  some  general  term  indicative  of  the  system,  as  held  in  all 
ages  and  among  all  denominations  of  Christians. 

To  sum  up  the  whole  matter  :  It  will  be  proper  for  you,  as 
a  court,  to  mark  Dr.  Beecher's  course,  as  far  as  it  has  been 
exhibited  to  you  by  evidence,  from  its  commencement  to  the 
present  time.  It  must  be  evident  to  all  that  his  course  has 
been  marked  with  vacillation,  and  has  been  calculated  to 
excite  deep  suspicion  and  long  and  loud  complaint,  both  in 
and  out  of  New  England ;  that  it  has  been  such  as  hitherto 
to  elude  detection,  and  escape  anything  like  a  trial  on  its  real 
merits ;  that  one  feature  which  has  peculiarly  marked  it  has 
been  the  mixture  in  his  publications  of  truth  and  error, — just 
enouorh  truth  to  make  the  error  with  which  it  is  associated 
most  deleterious  and  deadly  to  the  souls  of  men.  This  has 
been  the  course  adopted  by  all  false  teachers  in  every  age  of 
the  Church,  as  well  before  as  since  the  coming  of  Christ.    Nor 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  173 

is  it  strange ;  for  no  error  could  succeed,  if  it  sliould  be  pre- 
sented naked  and  alone,  unless  in  a  system  of  the  most  open 
and  abandoned  infidelity,  or  in  such  lectures  as  are  delivered 
in  Tammany  Hall,  New  York.  What  has  our  Lord  told  us 
respecting  such  teachers  7  He  said  that  they  Avould  come  in 
sheep's  clothing.  And  what  is  sheep's  clothing,  but  an 
exhi!)ilion  in  part  of  such  truths  as  none  can  gainsay  or 
disprove,  accompanied  by  an  example  of  personal  conduct 
with  which  none  can  find  fault?  We  have  had  two  indi- 
viduals in  the  West, —  I  refer  to  Barton  W.  Stone,  and  to 
Mr.  Parker,  of  Ncav  Richmond, —  who,  while  they  were 
the  most  decided  errorists  of  modern  times,  maintained  for 
thirty  years  morals  of  the  most  exemplary  and  unimpeachable 
desciiption.  They  came  in  sheep's  clothing.  And  what  is 
Paul's  description  ?  He  says  that  with  good  words  and  fair 
speeches  they  should  beguile  the  hearts  of  the  simple.  And, 
what  is  very  extraordinary,  men  of  this  description  have  ever 
appeared  to  be  entirely  unconscious  of  their  own  inconsistent 
and  reckless  course.  Of  this  there  is  not  a  more  impressive 
example  than  that  of  the  brilliant  and  conspicuous  Irving. 
When  he  had  pushed  his  delusion  even  to  the  extreme  of  pro- 
fessing to  speak  with  new  tongues,  and  after  he  had  been 
tried  and  condemned  for  his  false  and  heretical  opinions,  he 
laid  a  paper  on  the  table  of  the  Presbytery,  declaring  in  the 
fullest  terms  his  belief  in  the  whole  Confession  of  Faith. 
Errorists  ever  appear  unconscious  of  their  own  character. 
And  how  can  it  be  otherwise,  when  God  himself  has  told  us 
that  it  would  be  so?  The  sentiments  of  which  I  complain 
are  not  insulated  and  independent  tenets.  They  form  part 
of  a  system;  and  it  is  a  system  so  connected,  that  if  you 
adopt  one  of  its  leading  principles,  and  possess  a  logical  mind, 
you  will  be  obliged  to  follow  that  principle  out,  until  you 

VOL.  III.  15^ 


174  VIEV/,S    OF   THEOLOGY. 

have  adopted  the  -whole.  For  example :  suppose  you  adopt 
the  doctrine  of  the  natural  ability  of  fallen  man  to  do  what  is 
good, —  his  perfect  capacity  to  comply  fully  with  the  law  and 
the  Gospel  of  God, —  and  make  faith  and  repentance  the  terms 
on  which  God  will  forgive  sin,  and  save  the  soul.  You  then 
necessarily  exclude  the  direct  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon 
the  heart  in  quickening  those  who  are  dead  in  sin.  You  then 
represent  the  Spirit,  in  the  work  of  conversion,  merely  as 
being  more  capable  of  presenting  truth  to  the  mind  than  a 
man  is.  And  this  is  the  very  illustration  given  in  Ross' 
treatise,  entitled,  "Faith  according  to  Common  Sense."  And 
as  soon  as  you  lay  aside  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  in  creating 
a  new  heart,  you  get  at  once  upon  the  system  of  moral  sua- 
sion. Then  comes  an  indefinite  atonement,  through  which 
God  can  forgive  sin  on  condition  of  faith  and  repentance ; 
which  repentance  and  faith  the  sinner  by  his  own  strength  is 
able  to  exercise,  and  which  he  is  persuaded  to  exercise  because 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  able  to  present  truth  in  a  more  luminous 
manner  than  a  human  preacher  can  do  it.  Or,  to  use  Ross' 
illustration,  a  boy  cannot  split  the  log,  not  owing  to  any 
insufficiency  in  the  wedge  or  the  maul,  but  because  he  has 
not  strength  enough  for  the  task ;  but  when  a  man  comes 
along,  and  takes  hold  of  them,  the  log  is  immediately  riven 
asunder.  This  illustration,  however,  was  a  bad  one  on  their 
part,  because  it  implies  passivity  in  regeneration,  a  point 
which  they  deny.  Well,  as  soon  as  you  adopt  the  indefinite 
atonement,  you  cut  up  by  the  roots  the  federative  representa- 
tion of  the  second  Adam;  and,  when  you  have  done  this, 
consistency  will  oblige  you  to  go  back,  and  deny  the  federa- 
tive representation  of  the  first  Adam  ;  and  thus  you  have  got 
to  the  denial  of  original  sin ;  and  you  must  say,  with  Dr. 
Beecher,  that  "  somehow,  in  consequence  of  Adam's'  fall,  all 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  175 

men  sin  voluntarily ;  and  that  tlic  first  sin  in  every  man  could 
have  been  and  ought  to  have  been  avoided."  Again,  take  the 
other  side  of  the  proposition,  and  you  run  into  the  system  of 
the  Perfectionists.  Man  is  able  to  keep  the  whole  law.  The 
Spirit  so  persuades  him  as  to  make  him  willing.  And  when 
he  is  both  able  and  willing,  there  can,  of  course,  be  no  sin. 

Now,  we  say  that  this  is  ^'  another  Gospel ;  "  that  it  is  not 
the  system  of  truth  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  I  am 
here  prepared  to  say,  as  the  apostle  did,  without  the  least 
bitterness  of  spirit,  and  with  an  earnest  desire  that  God  would 
be  pleased  to  turn  men  from  their  darkness  and  delusion,  that 
if  any  man  preach  another  Gospel,  let  him  be  anathema. 
The  apostolic  injunction  must  be  obeyed, —  to  mark  those 
who  cause  contentions  among  Christians,  and  to  avoid  them  ; 
because,  by  good  words  and  fair  speeches,  they  beguile  the 
hearts  of  the  simple. 

Sir,  this  is  zealously  pushed  forward.  It  has  already 
created  divisions  and  distractions  throughout  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  What  was  once  the  condition  of  all  the  Churches 
under  the  care  of  this  Synod  ?  They  lived  in  peace.  They 
acted  as  brethren.  Meetings  of  the  Synod  and  of  the  Presby- 
teries were  anticipated  as  seasons  of  refreshing.  We  were  all 
engaged, —  not,  indeed,  to  the  extent  we  should  have  been,  in 
laboring  in  the  Lord's  cause.  AVe  did,  indeed,  fall  far  short 
of  our  whole  duty,  but  still  we  labored  together  with  mutual 
affection,  and  our  meetings  were  blessed.  And  I  here  say 
openly,  and  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  we  enjoyed 
happy  seasons  of  religious  revival,  until  they  were  checked 
and  interrupted  by  the  introduction  of  this  new  system. 
But  since  this  new  divinity  has  entered  our  bounds,  we  have 
had  nothing  but  distraction  and  disunion.  Our  revivals  have 
been  killed,  and  our  once  rejoicing  Churches  now  sit  in  a 


176  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

death-like  silence.  Yes,  sii',  they  are  like  the  mountains  of 
Gilboa,  destitute  of  the  dews  of  heaven ;  they  are  like  the 
bones  in  the  valley  of  vision,  dry,  very  dry.  My  brethren, 
you  are  called  upon,  as  guardians  of  the  purity  of  the 
Church,  and  watchmen  upon  her  walls,  to  restore  that  peace 
and  order  which  she  once  enjoyed,  by  jDutting  a  check  to  a 
system  of  doctrine  which  ought,  like  the  idols  of  the  heathen, 
to  be  cast  with  all  speed  to  the  moles  and  to  the  bats. 

And  let  me  tell  you  now  that  with  this  system  there  can 
be  no  compromise.  Things  which  are  so  utterly  contradictory 
never  can  be  made  to  coalesce.  The  old  and  the  new  divinity 
are  now  engaged  in  an  arduous  and  desperate  struggle.  It  is 
like  the  contest  of  fire  and  water.  And  they  must  continue 
to  fight  until  the  weaker  shall  die.  And,  though  this  is  poetry, 
it  is  no  fiction.  Much  will  depend  on  you.  The  days  of 
white-washing  are  gone  by  forever.  That  party  which  shall 
be  victorious  will  maintain  the  seminary,  and  control  its 
funds ;  and  that  party  which  is  not  sustained  must  go  out ; 
for  we  cannot  live  together.  The  Confession  of  Faith  must 
go  down,  or  the  new  theology  must  be  put  out  of  doors. 
Your  decision,  it  is  true,  will  not  be  final.  But,  if  it  shall  be 
made  in  conformity  with  the  standards  of  our  Church,  what 
you  bind  on  earth  will  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and,  even  though 
it  should  be  annulled  by  men,  will,  nevertheless,  in  the  end 
be  recognized  by  the  broad  seal  of  the  great  Master. 

The  simple  question  which  each  of  you  is  bound  to  put  to 
his  own  conscience,  under  each  separate  charge,  in  this  trial, 
is  simply  this  :  Has  this  charge  been  sustained  by  evidence  ? 
and,  unless  I  am  greatly  deceived  indeed,  your  reply  must 
be  in  the  afiirmative.  And,  if  it  is,  will  you  acquit  this  man  7 
Will  you  tell  him  to  do  so  no  more  ?  and  will  you  there  let 
it  end?     Be  reminded,  I  pray  you,  of  the  cases  of  Barnes 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  177 

and  Duffickl.  There  a  wliite-washing  committee  was  ap- 
pointed, who  white-washed  both  parties.  In  the  latter  case, 
the  charges  were  sustained,  and  the  man  proved  guilty ;  he 
was  gently  advised  to  offend  no  more.  And,  what  followed  ? 
—  Peace?  Order?  —  No;  deeper  and  deeper  animosities,  and 
wider  and  wider  divisions,  were  the  natural  consequences; 
and  must  continue  to  be  the  consequences,  until  the  decisions 
of  church-courts  are  made  so  clear  with  respect  to  the  inflic- 
tion of  censure  that  they  will  effectually  guard  against  the 
inroads  of  heresy,  that  they  shall  strike  terror  into  the  breast 
of  every  heresiarch,  and  shall  rescue  every  inexperienced 
novice  from  Ynsfacilis  descensus  Avenii^ — the  easy  road  to 
perdition. 

I  have  taxed  my  ingenuity  to  discover  what  defence  could 
possibly  be  set  up  by  the  accused ;  and  I  confess  myself 
utterly  unable  so  much  as  to  conjecture.  This  may  be  owing 
to  my  want  of  imagination,  and  of  ingenuity ;  and  Dr. 
Beecher  will  very  probably  show  something  that  was  far 
beyond  my  powers  of  imagination  to  anticipate ;  and  when 
his  powerful  intellect  shall  have  demonstrated  that  white  is 
black,  that  two  and  two  do  not  make  four,  then,  and  not  till 
then,  may  he  expect  an  acquittal. 


Friday  afternoon. 
Dr.  Beecher  said  that  before  commencing  his  defence  he 
wished  to  adduce  some  additional  testimony  in  reference  to 
the  question  how  much  of  liis  capital  in  character  he  had 
lost  before  he  left  New  England ;  and  he  adduced  it  in  order 
to  meet  the  anonymous  and  personal  letters  which  had  been 
read  by  Dr.  Wilson,  as  published  by  Mr.  Rand,  the  Edward- 
ean,  and  others. 


178  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

Dr.  WiLSOX  said  he  had  no  objection,  so  far  as  it  was 
testimony ;  but,  at  present.  Dr.  Beecher  himself  stood  on  one 
side,  and  IMr.  Rand  on  the  other,  as  to  the  question  of  Dr. 
Beecher"  s  capital  in  reputation.  He  j^resumed  the  Presby- 
tery was  competent  to  decide  between  them. 

Professor  Stowe  was  thereupon  sworn,  and  testified  as 
follows.: 

According  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge.  Dr.  Beecher' s 
reputation  and  influence  in  New  England  were  never  so 
great,  nor  did  he  ever  enjoy  so  extensively  the  confidence  of 
the  religious  community,  as  at  the  time  when  he  received  and 
accepted  the  invitation  to  come  to  Cincinnati. 

To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  he  had  then  but  three  open 
and  declared  assailants  of  public  character  : 

1.  Thomas  "Whittemore,  editor  of  the  Umversalist 
Trumpet ;  a  paper  uniformly  marked  with  the  worst  feat- 
ures of  the  most  ferocious  kind  of  Universalism. 

2.  Moses  Thatcher,  editor  of  the  Neio  England  Tele- 
graph ;  a  paper  devoted  to  the  most  ultra  kind  of  Hopkins- 
ianism,  which  makes  God  the  direct  efficient  cause  of  every 
sinful  thought,  emotion,  word  and  deed  of  every  sinful  crea- 
ture in  the  universe ;  and  to  the  most  ultima  kind  of  independ- 
ency in  church  government,  which  he  carried  to  such  an 
extreme  that  the  Hopkinsians  themselves,  with  Dr.  Emmons 
at  their  head,  made  a  pubhc  disclaimer  and  condemnation  of 
his  views  and  proceedings  in  matters  of  church  discipline. 
Mr.  Thatcher  had  had  difficulties  in  his  own  church,  which 
were  divided  against  him  in  a  council  of  which  Dr.  Beecher 
was  a  prominent  member. 

3.  Asa  Rand,  editor  of  the  Volunteer^  and  afterwards  the 
Lowell  Observer.     I  was  for  many  years  acquainted  with 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  179^ 

Mr.  Rand,  having  fitted  for  college  in  the  parish  of  -which  ho 
Avas  minister,  and  boarding  next  door  to  him ;  and  afterwards 
occui)ying,  for  about  a  year,  the  same  office-room  Avith  him 
in  Boston,  as  an  editor.  lie  is  a  man  of  great  industry, 
perseverance,  and  other  valuable  traits  of  character ;  but, 
from  his  peculiar  habits  of  thought,  and  feeling,  and  action, 
not  likely  to  do  justice  to  such  a  man  as  Dr.  Beecher.  He 
Avas  opposed  to  Dr.  Beecher' s  theology,  being  himself  an 
advocate  of  the  taste  and  exercise  scheme  of  Dr.  Burton.  lie 
disliked  Dr.  Beecher's  mode  of  preaching,  being  strenuously 
hostile  to  religious  excitement  and  strong  appeals  to  the  feel- 
ings, of  which  he  had  given  decided  proof  many  years  before, 
by  his  disapprobation  of  Dr.  Payson's  mode  of  preaching,  in 
whose  neighborhood  he  Avas  settled,  and  whose  sister  he  had 
married.  Besides,  Dr.  Beecher  was  uniformly  successful  in 
Boston,  and  constantly  rising  in  influence,  while  Mr.  Rand 
was  uniformly  unsuccessful,  and  his  influence  was  continually 
decreasing.  Those  acquainted  with  the  circumstances  Avill 
receive  Mr.  Rand's  statement  and  innuendoes  with  great  abate- 
ment ;  not  from  any  distrust  of  his  moral  integrity,  but  from 
a  knowledge  of  the  medium  through  which  facts  would  pre- 
sent themselves  to  his  mind.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge, 
the  suspicions  and  complaints  alluded  to  in  Mr.  Rand's  letter 
to  Dr.  Beecher  were  confined  to  a  very  small  number  of  per- 
sons, and  did  not  by  any  means  extend  to  the  great  body  of 
what  is  called  the  old-school  party  in  New  England,  or  the 
most  judicious  and  leading  men  in  that  party.  Of  the  men 
of  this  class,  no  one  stands  higher  than  Dr.  Woods,  of  An- 
dover.  I  lived  in  his  house  part  of  the  time  while  I  was  at 
the  seminary ;  from  that  time  to  this  he  has  always  treated 
me  with  the  kindness,  afiection,  and  confidence  of  a  father, 
and  I  have  always  loved,  and  trusted,  and  consulted  him  as 


180  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

such.  While  deliberating  whether  I  should  come  to  Lane 
Seminary,  Dr.  Woods  frequently,  and  with  the  deep  feeling 
characteristic  of  him,  expressed  to  me  his  affectionate  con- 
fidence in  Dr.  Beecher,  and  his  earnest  wish  for  the  success 
of  the  seminary.  The  same  feelings  were  expressed  to  me 
by  Dr.  Woods,  and  the  same  kind  wishes  reiterated,  when  I 
visited  him  at  his  house  in  September  last. 

Dr.  Tyler  is  well  known  to  the  public  as  the  chief  antago- 
nist of  the  New  Haven  theology.  He  stands  to  me  in  the 
relation  of  a  father  and  confidential  friend.  I  have  been  for 
years  a  member  of  his  family,  and  his  children  are  my  broth- 
ers and  sisters.  When  I  was  deliberating  about  coming  to 
Lane  Seminary,  Dr.  Tyler  expressed  the  same  feelings  with 
Dr.  Woods,  and,  perhaps,  with  still  greater  distinctness.  He 
has  frequently  said  to  me,  in  conversation,  "  I  always  loved 
Dr.  Beecher,  and  have  entire  confidence  in  him,"  or  words  to 
that  effect.  It  is  my  full  conviction  that  the  feelings  of  Dr. 
Woods  and  Dr.  Tyler  towards  Dr.  Beecher  are  the  feelings 
of  the  great  body  of  the  refigious  community  in  New  Eng- 
land, even  among  the  strong  opponents  of  what  is  called  new 
divinity  men  and  measures.  The  Congregational  ministers 
of  Maine  and  New  Hampshire,  particularly,  are  almost 
entirely  of  this  class,  and  I  never  saw  one  that  did  not  love 
and  confide  in  Dr.  Beecher ;  and  I  am  personally  acquainted, 
I  think,  with  a  majority  of  the  ministers  in  both  those  states. 
The  pamphlet  by  an  Edwardean,  I  am  sure,  does  not  express 
the  feeling  of  even  the  old-school  party  in  New  England.  I 
never  heard  Dr.  Woods  or  Dr.  Tyler  say  a  word  in  favor  of 
it.  This  pamphlet  was  strongly  disapproved  by  men  of  all 
parties ;  and  the  author,  as  far  as  I  know,  has,  to  this  day, 
never  dared  to  avow  himself :  and,  from  my  connection  with 
opposers  of  New  Haven  theology,   I  think  I  should  have 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  181 

known  it,  if  lie  luad.  It  was  everywhere  regarded  in  New 
England  as  a  great  and  heroic  sacrifice,  on  the  part  of  Dr. 
Beecher,  to  give  up  the  advantages  of  the  reputation  and 
pubhc  influence  he  had  then  acquired,  and  to  go  to  a  distant 
field,  where  he  must  gain  reputation  anew,  and  work  his  way 
like  a  young  man. 

Rev.  F,  Y.  Vail  was  then  sworn,  and  his  testimony  is  as 
follows : 

I  have,  during  the  last  four  years,  visited  the  churches  and 
ministers  extensively  in  New  York  and  the  States  of  New 
England,  in  obtaining  funds  for  the  Lane  Seminary.  I  have 
great  confidence  in  stating  that  the  association  of  Dr.  Beech- 
er's  name  with  this  institution  was  one  of  the  most  important 
means  of  securing  the  funds  requisite  for  its  endowment ;  and 
that  both  ministers  and  churches,  wherever  I  have  visited, 
have,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  manifested  the  most  un- 
shaken confidence  in  Dr.  Beecher.  The  general  impression 
seemed  to  pervade  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian 
churches  with  which  I  have  had  intercourse,  that  the  removal 
of  no  other  man  w^ould  be  so  great  a  blessing  to  this  important 
section  of  our  country  as  that  of  Dr.  Beecher ;  and  it  was 
with  much  regret  that  they  were  called  to  give  up  his 
important  and  valuable  services  in  New  England. 

Rev.  Artemas  Bullard  was  next  sworn,  and  testified  as 
follows : 

For  nearly  five  years  I  was  agent  of  the  Massachusetts 
Sabbath  School  Union,  before  Dr.  Beecher  was  called  to  the 
West,  and  for  several  years  a  member  of  Dr.  Beecher' s 
church  in  Boston.  I  have  visited  nearly  every  Orthodox 
Congregational  minister  in  Massachusetts,  and  a  great  por- 

VOL.  III.  10 


182  VIEAVS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

tion  of  all  in  the  New  England  States.  Among  all  these  I 
know  the  reputation  of  Dr.  Beecher  had  been  uniformly  rising 
till  he  left.  There  was  no  minister  in  New  England  so  uni- 
formly dreaded  and  hated  by  Unitarians  and  Universalists  as 
Dr.  Beecher.  I  was  in  the  church-meeting  when  the  ques- 
tion was  discussed  whether  Dr.  Beecher  should  be  dismissed 
to  come  here.  The  main  reason  urged  why  he  should  not 
come,  by  members  of  the  Church,  was,  that  he  never  had  so 
much  influence  in  the  orthodox  community  as  then. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  What  is  the  standard  of  orthodoxy  among 
the  clergymen  you  denominate  orthodox  ? 

Ansicer.  —  Those  are  denominated  orthodox,  in  New  Eng- 
land, who  are  opposed  to  Unitarian  sentiments. 

Dr.  WiLSOX.  —  Have  they  any  written  or  published  creed, 
which  forms  a  bond  of  union  among  them,  as  our  system  of 
doctrine  ? 

Ans.  —  Nothing  like  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Is  not  every  congregation,  in  respect  to  its 
articles  of  faith,  independent,  claiming  the  right  of  forming  its 
own  creed  and  covenant  ? 

Ans.  —  I  believe  they  are. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Was  the  creed  and  covenant  of  Dr. 
Beecher' s  church  similar  to  that  which  has  been  extracted 
from  the  sermon  on  ''  Faith  once  Delivered  to  the  Saints  "? 

Ans.  —  I  never  compared  the  two. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  In  what  estimation  did  the  orthodox 
ministers  of  New  England  hold  that  sermon  7 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect  ever  hearing  that  mentioned  as 
distinct  from  other  sermons. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Has  Mr.   Band,   in  his  letter  to   Dr. 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  183 

Beecher,  misrepresented  or  misstated  Dr.  Beecher's  connec- 
tions with  Dr.  Taylor  and  Mr.  Finney  ? 

Ans.  —  I  don't  know  what  was  in  that  letter. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Why  did  the  Unitarians  hate  Dr.  Beecher, 
when  the  Christian  Exam,iner^  in  a  review  of  his  sermon  on 
"Faith  once  Dchvercd,"  &c.j  claimed  the  sentiments  as  their 
own  '\ 

Ans.  —  They  hated  and  dreaded  him  because  they  sup- 
posed that  he  was  the  most  powerful  and  efficient  opponent  of 
Unitarian  sentiments.  His  labors  in  Boston  were  specially 
directed  to  counteract  Unitarian  sentiments. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Do  you  not  know  it  as  a  historical  fact 
that  Unitarians  greatly  rejoice  at  the  progress  of  what  is 
called  new  theology  ? 

Ans.  — They  do  not,  if  you  mean  that  Dr.  Beecher's  doc- 
trines are  new  theology. 

Mr.  Brainerd.  —  Are  the  orthodox  ministers  and  churches 
of  New  England  Calvinists  7 

Ans.  —  Yes,  so  far  as  they  follow  any  man. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  In  what  estimation  do  ministers  and 
churches  hold  the  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism  ? 

Ans.  — The  orthodox  churches,  universally,  consider  it  ihe 
best  epitome  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  The  families  arc 
taught  that  Catechism  as  universally  as  they  are  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Do  they  teach  the  Shorter  Catechism  as  it 
is  mutilated  and  altered  by  the  American  Sabbath  School 
Union,  or  as  it  exists  in  the  standards  of  our  Church  ? 

Ans.  —  I  never  knew  any  of  the  American  Sabbath  School 
Union  Catechism  in  New  England. 

Mr.  Bulla  RD  confirmed  the  testimony  of  Prof.  Stowe, 


184  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

respecting  Mr.  Rand,  and  the  editors  of  the  Telegraphy 
Tnunpet^  and  others. 

Prof.  Stowe  called  up  again. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  Has  Mr.  Rand,  in  his  letter  to  Dr. 
Beecher,  part  of  which  has  been  read  before  this  Presbytery, 
misrei^resented  or  misstated  Dr.  Beecher's  cooperation  with 
Dr.  Taylor  and  Mr.  Finney  in  Boston  ? 

Ans.  —  I  cannot  give  a  simple  affirmation  or  negation  to 
the  question ;  but  must  say  that  the  statements  of  the  letter 
are  unfair,  inasmuch  as  they  represent  Dr.  Beecher  as 
entirely  concurring  in,  and  responsible  for,  all  the  sentiments 
and  measures  of  Dr.  Taylor  and  Mr.  Finney ;  and  the  dis- 
claimer which  he  asserts  of  such  intention  does  not  at  all 
correct  the  general  impression  which  the  letter  always  makes. 
[Read  and  approved.] 

Dr.  Beecher  now  rose,  and  addressed  the  court  in  nearly 
the  following  terms  :  _ 

I  have  fallen  very  unexpectedly,  at  my  time  of  life,  on  the 
necessity  of  getting  testimony  to  support  my  theological  and 
clerical  character.  But,  since  I  am  called  to  it,  J  may  as  well 
make  thorough  work:  and  I  shall,  therefore,  request  the 
clerk  to  read  a  letter  addressed  to  me  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Greene, 
two  years  previous  to  my  coming  to  this. place.  The  letter  is 
dated  31st  March,  1828,  and  is  as  follows : 

Philadelphia,  March  31,  1828. 
Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  :  This,  Sir,  will  be  handed  you  by  two  members 
of  the  Fifth  Presbyterian  Church  of  this  city,  who  have  been  delegated  to 
consult  you  on  the  subject  of  a  call  to  the  pastoral  charge  of  that  Church. 
They  need  no  assistance  from  me  in  explaining  their  views,  or  in  showing 
the  importance  of  the  situation  to  which  they  and  the  people  they  repre- 
sent have  invited  you.  My  design,  in  writing  this  note,  is  to  say,  that, 
having  presided  at  the  meeting  of  the  congregation  at  which  this  call  was 


TRIAL    BEFORE    TRESBYTERY.  185 

voted,  I  can  and  do  assure  you  that  the  most  perfect  unanimity  and 
apparent  cordiality  marked  the  whole  proceeding.  Public  notice  of  the 
meeting  had  been  fully  given  on  the  preceding  Lord's  day  ;  the  assembly 
was  large  and  solemn  :  and  there  was  neither  a  dissenting  voice,  nor,  so 
far  as  I  judge,  a  neutral  individual,  when  the  vote  was  taken. 

I  have  only  to  ad<l,  that  if  you  shall  find  it  to  be  your  duty  to  become  an 
inhabitant  of  this  city,  and  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadcli)hia, 
you  shall,  if  I  am  spared  to  witness  it,  be  received  and  treated  in  the  most 
respectful  manner,  and  with  true  fraternal  affection. 

Your  friend  and  brother  in  the  Gospel  of  our  precious  Redeemer, 

AsiiJuoL  Greene. 
Rev.  Dr.  Beeciier. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  this  letter  -was  written  by  Dr. 
Greene  after  he  had  commended,  as  Calvinistic,  the  sermon  in 
•which  I  advanced  the  doctrine  of  man's  natural  ability ;  for 
"which,  in  the  opinion  of  my  brother  Wilson,  I  ought  to  bo 
turned  out  of  the  Church,  and,  of  course.  Dr.  Greene  also. 

I  Avill  now  request  the  clerk  to  read  another  letter  addressed 
to  me,  about  the  same  time,  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Miller.  This 
is  dated  April  2,  1828,  and  is  in  the  following  words  : 

Princeton,  April  2,  1828. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Brother  :  Before  this  letter  reaches  your  hands,  you  will 
have  been  apprized  that  the  church  of  which  our  friend  Dr.  Skinner  was 
lately  the  pastor,  has  given  you  an  unanimous  call  to  become  their  minister. 

Some  az'e  disposed  to  smile  at  this  measure,  as  a  sort  of  desperate  effort 
at  retaliation,  for  robbing  Pliiladelphia  of  Dr.  Skinner.  Others  view  it 
as  a  plan  by  no  means  hopeless.  But  all,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  this  region, 
would  most  cordially  rejoice  in  the  success  of  the  application,  and  hail 
your  arrival  in  Philadelphia  as  an  event  most  devoutly  to  be  wished  by  all 
the  friends  of  Zion  within  the  bounds  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

My  dear  brother,  I  beg,  with  all  the  earnestness  that  I  am  capable  of 
feeling  or  uttering,  that  you  will  not  cither  lightly  consider  or  lyistily 
reject  this  call.  I  do  seriously  believe  that,  however  painful  the  step  (of 
removal  to  Philadelphia)  might  be,  both  to  the  friends  of  religion  in 
Massachusetts  and  to  yourself,  the  residue  of  your  days  could  not  possibly 
be  disposed  of  (so  far  as  human  views  can  go)  in  a  manner  so  much  calou- 

voL.  iir.  16* 


186  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

la  ted  to  unite  the  friends  of  Christ  in  the  South  and  West  with  those  at  the 
East,  and  to  introduce  a  nevv-  era  of  harmony,  love  and  cooperation,  in 
the  American  churches. 

It  is  not  only  a  matter  of  immense  importance  that  the  individual 
church  in  Philadelphia  which  gives  you  this  call  should  be  supplied  with 
a  pastor  wise,  pious,  peaceful,  prudent  and  acceptable,  as  far  as  possible, 
to  all  parties  ;  but,  if  you  will  come  in  to  that  place,  I  am  most  deeply  per- 
suaded that  you  will  have  an  opportunity  of  a  most  happy  and  reviving 
influence  all  around  you,  to  a  degree  which  very  few  men  in  our  countiy 
have  ever  had  ;  that  you  will  be  likely,  humanly  speaking,  to  bring  together 
feelings  and  efforts  which  are  now  widely  separated  ;  and,  in  fact,  of  giving 
a  new  impulse  to  all  those  great  plans  which  I  know  to  be  near  your  heart. 

By  removing  to  Philadelphia, — unless  I  utterly  miscalculate,  —  you 
would  not  be  likely  to  subduct  very  essentially  from  your  usefulness  in 
Massachusetts.  You  might  still,  by  means  of  writing  and  occasional  visits, 
continue  to  do  there  a  large  portion  of  what  you  now  do  ;  while  your  influ- 
ence and  usefulness  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  from  New  England  to  New 
Orleans,  might,  and  probably  would,  be  increased  ten-fold.  I  have  no  doubt 
that,  by  your  acceptance  of  the  station  to  which  you  are  called,  your 
opportimity  for  doing  good  in  the  American  churches  would  be  doubled,  if 
not  quadrupled,  at  a  stroke. 

Say  not  that  these  things  are  matters  of  human  calculation.  They  are  so  ; 
and  yet,  I  think,  the  book  of  God,  and  hun^»an  experience,  furnish  an  abun- 
dant foundation  for  them  to  rest  upon.  The  truth  is,  we  want  nothing, 
for  the  benefit  of  our  eighteen  hundred  churches  (next  to  the  sanctifying 
Spirit  of  God),  so  much  as  an  individual  in  Philadelphia  (our  ecclesiastical 
metropolis)  who  should  be  active,  energetic,  untiring,  comprehensive  in 
his  plans,  and  firm  and  unmoved  in  his  purposes  and  efforts.  Will  you  not 
cast  yourself  on  the  Lord's  strength  and  faithfulness,  and  come  and  help  us 
to  unite  all  our  force  in  one  mighty  effort,  in  the  name  of  our  heavenly 
King,  to  promote  his  cause  at  home  and  abroad  ?  With  the  cordiality  of  a 
brother,  and  the  freedom  of  an  old  friend,  I  conjure  you,  when  such  an 
open  door  is  set  before  you,  not  to  refuse  to  enter  it.  As  to  your  reception 
among  us,  I  hope  I  need  not  say  that  it  would  be  universally  with  glad 
hearts  and  open  arms !  May  the  Lord  direct  and  bless  you  !  Sincerely 
your  friend  and  brother,  Samuel  Miller. 

I  have  reason  to  believe  that  Dr.  Miller,  at  the  time  he 
wrote  this  letter,  had  read  all  my  publications  but  the  last ; 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  187 

and  if  so,  he  and  Dr.  Greene  ought  to  go  out  of  the  Church 
together. 

I  have  another  letter,  of  a  aomewhat  later  date ;  and,  now 
that  I  am  holding  up  myself  by  certificates  of  character,  I 
wish  that  this,  too,  may  be  read.  It  is  from  the  Rev.  Dr. 
J.  L.  Wilson. 

Dr.  Wilson  here  inquired  whether  this  ^Yas  the  same  letter 
which  Dr.  Beecher  had  produced  at  the  last  meeting  of  Pres- 
bytery. 

Dr.  Beeciier  replied  in  the  affirmative. 

Dr.  Wilson  then  inquired  of  the  Moderator  whether  Dr. 
Beecher  had  not  said  at  the  time  that  the  explanation  which 
he  (Dr.  Wilson)  had  made  in  respect  to  it  was  satisfactory. 

Dr.  Beecher  said  that  the  explanation  was  satisfactory 
so  far  as  respected  the  sermon  on  native  depravity,  aiA  no 
further. 

Dr.  Wilson  said  he  had  no  objection  to  the  letter  being 
read,  because  he  could  make  the  same  explanation  again. 

Dr.  Beecher  replied  that  he  would  not  make  the  same 
explanation,  because  he  (Dr.  Beecher)  should  make  that 
sermon  an  exception.  The  letter  now  to  be  read  had  been 
addressed  by  a  committee  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Lane 
Seminary  to  the  church  to  vv'hich  Dr.  Beecher  belonged,  at 
the  time  he  was  invited  to  come  here.  It  is  dated  on  the  5th 
February,  1831.  and  is  in  the  following  terms  : 

Cincinnati,  Feb.  5,  1831. 
To  the  Hanover  Church  and  Congregation : 

Beloved  Buetiirkn  and  Fellow-citizens  :  As  a  committee  of  the 
board  of  Lane  Theological  Seminary,  the  undersigned  arc  called  upon  to 
address  you  in  behalf  of  that  institution.  [The  letter  proceeds  to  state 
reasons,  drawn  from  a  general  view  of  the  wants  of  the  West,  for  the  erec- 
tion of  the  seminary,  &c.     It  then  proceeds  :] 


188  VIEWS   OF   TIIEOLOGT, 

Having  presented  this  general  view  of  the  character,  claims  and 
prospects,  of  our  seminary,  permit  ns,  dear  brethren  and  friends,  to 
specify  a  few  particular  reasons  whr  Dr.  Beecher  is  called,  by  Divine 
Providence,  and  the  great  interests  of  the  Church,  to  this  institution. 

1.  The  strongest  convictions  of  many  of  our  wisest  and  best  men,  east 
and  west  of  the  mountains,  that  the  great  interests  of  the  Church,  and 
especially  of  the  West,  require  Dr.  Beecher's  labors  at  the  head  of  our 
seminary.  A  large  number  of  our  ministerial  and  lay  brethren  have 
expressed  their  delibei-ate  conviction  that  the  enterprise  of  building  up  a 
gresit  central  theological  institution  at  Cincinnati, — soon  to  become  the 
great  Andover  or  Princeton  of  the  Yvxst,  and  to  give  character  to  hundreds 
and  thousands  0/  ministers  which  may  issue  from  it,  —  is  one  of  the  most 
important  and  responsible  in  which  the  Church  is  ever  called  to  engage  ; 
and  that  no  man  in  our  country,  in  many  important  respects,  is  so  well 
fitted  to  grve  character,  energy  and  success,  to  such  an  institution,  as  Dr. 
Beecher.  Never  has  the  presentation  of  a  similar  subject  excited  more 
deep  and  lively  interest,  and  called  forth  a  more  general  and  cordial 
approbation  among  the  friends  of  religion  at  the  East  and  the  West,  than 
by  the  announcement  of  Dr.  Beecher's  appointment  as  our  president  and 
theological  professor,  and  the  consequent  prospect  of  our  securing  ample 
r'unds  for  the  endowment  of  the  institution.  This  voice  of  public  opinion, 
and  of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  we  think  Ls  to  be  regarded 
as  no  unimportant  indication  of  the  will  of  Providence  in  this  matter. 

2.  Dr.  Beecher's  well-known  standing  and  well-known  reputation  at  the 
West,  as  well  as  the  East,  will  make  his  labors  of  incalculable  import- 
ance to  our  seminary.  *  *  *  j^or  is  it  a  consideration  of  small 
importance,  that  Dr.  Beecher's  habits  of  rigorous  exercise  and  labor  would 
exert  a  most  powerful  practical  influence  in  giving  increased  reputation 
and  popularity  among  the  community  generally. 

3.  *  *  *  The  Church  is  now,  doubtless,  entering  into  the  most  event- 
ful period  of  her  most  glorious  enterprise,  in  speedily  sending  the  Gospel  to 
every  creature,  and  subjugating  the  world  to  the  Prince  of  Peace.  To 
accomplish  this  great  work,  we  want,  indeed,  hundreds  and  thousands  of 
additional  laborers  ;  but  we  need,  more  especially,  in  the  character  of  those 
who  come  forth,  to  see  men  of  higher  and  holier  enterprise  than  most  of  us 
who  have  entered  the  ministry.  Do  we  not  need,  and  must  we  not  have, 
if  the  millennium  is  ever  to  come,  men  of  evangelical  and  deep-toned  piety; 
baptized  into  the  spirit  of  revivals, — possessing  clear  and  discriminating 
views  of  divine  truth,  —  despising  the  compromising  spirit  of  worldly  pru- 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  189 

donee,  —  fearless  and  firm  in  their  attacks  upon  the  strong-holds  of  infidel- 
ity and  the  devil  ;  men  who  should  be  fully  up  to,  or  rather  far  in  advance 
of,  the  spirit  of  the  age,  in  Christian  enterprise  and  action,  and  men  whose 
whole  souls  arc  absorbed  in  the  great  work  of  converting  the  world  ?  And 
how,  dear  brethren  and  friends,  can  we  so  effectually  rear  up  such  men,  as 
by  putting  them  under  the  instruction  of  one  whose  spirit  shall  become 
theirs,  and  who,  without  invidioiis  comparisons,  has  no  superior,  in  tlic 
characteristics  now  mentioned,  in  this  or  any  other  portion  of  Christen- 
dom ? 

When  we  reflect  how  much  has  been  accomplished,  and  is  now  doing,  for 
the  salvation  of  our  country  and  the  world,  by  one  such  spirit  as  Beecher, 
w^e  foci  that  the  Church  will  be  depi'ived  of  his  most  important  services  and 
influence,  unless  he  is  permitted  to  impress  the  important  lineaments  of 
his  character  upon  the  rising  ministers  of  the  West. 

4.  The  influence  which  Dr.  Beecher  would  be  able  to  exert  in  our  city 
and  the  surrounding  country,  as  a  preacher,  renders  his  labors  at  this 
point  peculiarly  important  and  desirable.  It  is  well  known  that  Cincinnati 
now  contains  about  thirty  thousand  inhabitants,  &c.  *  *  *  While  train- 
ing up  young  men  for  the  ministry  where  their  influence  on  the  city  "will  be 
powerfully  felt,  the  contiguity  of  our  seminary  to  the  city  will  enable  the 
doctor  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  population  as  extensively  and  power- 
fully, and,  we  doubt  not,  as  successfully,  as  at  any  former  period  of  his 
ministry.  Who,  then,  would  not  rejoice  to  see  Dr.  Beecher  double  his 
influence  and  usefulness,  by  giving  character  and  prominence  to  a  great 
theological  seminary,  while  powerfully  wielding  at  the  same  time  the 
sword  of  truth  against  the  augmenting  powers  of  darkness  in  our  city  and 
surrounding  country  ? 

5.  The  deep  and  general  interest  which  would  be  awakened  at  the  East, 
in  behalf  of  the  West,  by  the  removal  of  Dr.  Beecher  to  our  seminary,  con- 
stitutes, in  our  estimation,  an  urgent  reason  for  his  acceptance  of  our  call. 
We  all  thank  God  and  take  courage,  in  view  of  the  interest  which  has  been 
excited,  and  the  effort  made  at  the  East  in  behalf  of  the  West  within  the 
last  few  years.  *  *  &c.  What,  then,  do  we  ask,  can  be  done  now  for 
the  West,  &c.  ?  We  answer,  let  hundreds  and  thousands  of  pious  and  intel- 
ligent families  from  the  East,  with  the  spirit  of  missionaiaes,  scatter  them- 
selves over  all  the  towns  aand  villages  of  our  great  valley,  without  delay. 
=»  *  *  Do  you  ask  how  the  interest,  necessary  to  bring  them  on  the 
gi'ound,  can  be  excited?  We  reply,  let  it  be  known  that  Dr.  Beecher 
is  really  going  into  this  field  of  labor  himself  ;  that,  in  entering  upon  the 


190  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

work,  he  is  Tvilling  to  lead  the  way  ;  and,  as  he  passes  over  the  Alleghanies, 
let  him  pass  through  the  old  states,  and  beat  up  for  volunteers  in  this  truly 
Christian  crusade  against  the  infidels.  And,  when  the  East  feels  sufficient 
interest  in  the  salvation  of  the  West  to  send  to  her  aid,  not  merely  a  few  of 
the  young  and  inexperienced  subalterns,  but  some  of  her  most  distin- 
guished generals,  it  will  be  felt  that  the  warfare  in  which  we  are  engaged 
is  one  which  must  soon  give  hberty  and  happiness,  or  despotism  and  ruin, 
to  our  country  ;  nor  will  men  nor  resources  be  wanting  to  achieve  a  speedy 
and  triumphant  victory. 

The  last  reason  we  shall  mention  for  Dr.  Beecher's  connection  with  our 
institution  is,  that  the  security  of  the  funds  pledged  on  this  condition,  and 
the  Gonsequent  existence  and  prosperity  of  the  seminary,  depend  upon  it. 
*  *  *  The  professorships,  amounting,  in  all,  to  fifty  thousand  dollars, 
are  nearly  secured,  on  condition  that  Dr.  Beecher  becomes  our  professor, 
and  that  we  at  the  West  raise  from  ten  thousand  to  twenty  thousand  dol- 
lars more  for  buildings,  &c.  These  funds,  thus  liberally  offered  to  us,  are 
to  be  given  on  account  of  the  special  confidence  which  the  donors  place  in 
Dr.  Beecher,  to  preside  over  and  give  character  and  success  to  our  semi- 
nary, &c.  By  a  Committee  of  the  Board  : 

J.  L.  Wilson,  (  Signed  by  me,  at 
J.  Gallaher,  <  their  request, 
F.  Y.  Vail,      (  F.  Y.  Vail. 

It  is  proper  I  should  state  that  Dr  Wilson  declared  that  he 
had  not  seen  my  sermon  on  the  Native  Character  of  Man  at 
the  time  this  letter  was  written ;  but  he  certainly  had  a  full 
knowledge  of  my  sentiments  on  the  subject  of  natural  ability 
so  long  before  as  the  year  1817,  when  he  had  a  conversation 
with  me  on  that  subject. 

Dr.  Beecher,  having  no  further  testimony  to  adduce,  now 
entered  upon  his  defence,  and  spoke  substantially  as  follows  : 

I  have  two  causes  of  embarrassment  in  entering  upon  thi? 
subject.  I  know  that  I  am  hable  to  be  regarded  as  a  strange?, 
thrust  in  upon  the  quiet  and  comfort  of  a  venerable  patriarcli, 
who  had  boTne  the  heat  and  burden  of  the  day ;  and  vexing 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  191 

his  righteous  soul  by  obtruding  upon  him  my  own  novel 
crudities  and  heresies.  And,  in  the  second  place,  I  am  also 
aware  that  it  may  be  said  that  ever  since  I  came  here  there 
has  been  nothing  but  quarrelling  in  the  "churches  of  the 
West;  and  that  so  it  will  be  all  the  time  I  stay  here."  To 
this  my  answer  is,  that  as  to  my  being  an  intruder,  this  good 
brother  himself  called  me  to  come  here,  and  in  so  doing  acted, 
as  he  thought,  in  obedience  to  God's  high  command ;  and,  in 
obedience  to  what  I  understood  to  be  the  manifested  will  of 
Heaven,  I  came.  I  am  not  an  intruder.  I  left  all  that  man 
can  hold  dear,  in  respectful  estimation  and  the  sympathies  of 
friendship,  and  came  to  this  place,  expecting  the  warm  bosom 
and  surrounding  arms  of  this,  my  venerable  brother.  All  I 
shall  say  is,  that  my  reception  was  not  such  as  I  had  antici- 
pated. I  regret  exceedingly  that  I  am  compelled  by  a  sense 
of  duty  to  refer  to  the  manner  in  which  I  was  received  and 
treated  by  him.  And  here. let  me  say,  that  if  this  matter  had 
respected  myself  alone,  as  a  private  individual,  no  mortal 
would  ever  have  heard  a  word  upon  the  subject  from  my  lips. 
But  I  am  not  my  own.  My  character  and  influence  belong 
to  Christ ;  and,  if  I  have  not  done  evil,  I  have  no  right  to  per- 
mit them  to  be  suspected.  And,  if  my  brother,  with  ever  so 
good  intentions,  has  done  me  wrong,  if  he  has  broken  the  arm 
of  my  influence  as  a  man  associated  with  an  important  public 
institution,  and  with  the  Christian  cause  generally,  it  is  due 
to  that  cause,  and  to  the  responsible  station  I  occupy,  that  I 
should  endeavor  to  save  myself,  although  the  mode  is  most 
painful  to  me,  as  I  fear  it  will  prove  to  him.  I  would  thank 
the  clerk  to  read  a  few  extracts  from  the  paper  called  the 
Standard^  a  religious  periodical  published  in  this  city.  The 
articles  are  subscribed  with  the  initials  J.  L.  W. 

[Some  difficulty  occurring  in  turning  to  the  extracts,  Dr. 


192  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

Beecher  waived  his  call  for  the  reading  of  them,  and  pro- 
ceeded with  the  body  of  his  defence.] 

If  Dr.  "Wilson,  after  having  invited  me  to  settle  in  this  city, 
became  possessed  of  information  which  led  him  to  believe  that 
I  ought  not  to  accept  the  call  which  had  been  put  into  my 
hands.  Christian  courtesy  and  sincerity  required  of  him  that 
he  should  inform  me  of  such  change  in  his  opinion,  and  frankly 
avow  the  intended  change  of  his  course  in  regard  to  me.  If 
he  had  done  so,  I  would  have  gone  to  him  and  wept  upon  his 
bosom,  in  view  of  such  openness  and  integrity.  But  he  never 
did  it.  When  he  opposed  my  admission  into  the  Presbytery. 
I  expressed  my  confidence  that  I  could  explain  my  views  and  ^ 
doctrinal  opinions  satisfactorily  to  him ;  and  we  had  an  inter- 
locutory meeting  of  Presbytery  for  that  purpose.  But  it  did 
not  result  as  I  had  expected.  After  that,  I  told  Dr.  Wilson 
repeatedly  that  he  misunderstood  my  views  in  respect  to 
original  sin.  For  I  perfectly  well  knew  that  I  held  opinions 
on  that  subject  which  he  thought  I  did  not  hold  ;  and,  on  the 
contrary,  that  I  did  not  hold  certain  other  opinions  which  he 
thought  I  did  hold.  And  I  asked  him  whether  it  would  not 
be  better  for  us  mutually  to  explain,  and  endeavor  to  come  to 
a  satisfactory  understanding,  than  at  our  time  of  life  to  agitate 
the  community  with  controversy,  and  run  the  risk  of  breaking 
up  the  peace  of  the  Church.  Dr.  Wilson  replied,  that  when 
men  had  reached  our  period  of  life  their  opinions  were  suffi- 
ciently known ;  and  he  has  never  permitted  me  to  enjoy  the 
opportunity  of  one  word  of  explanation,  from  that  time  to  this. 
Now,  I  freely  admit  that  he  had  a  perfect  right  to  change  his 
opinion  in  regard  to  me,  and  the  expediency  of  my  settlement 
here.  But  he  had  not  a  right,  in  utter  recklessness  of  my 
personal  feelings,  and  the  impairing  of  my  ministerial  useful- 
ness, to  drag  me  before  the  public,  at  my  time  of  life,  after  I 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  193 

bad  served  God  and  the  Church  so  many  years,  and  must  soon 
go  to  give  in  my  account.  It  was  wrong,  very  wrong,  in  my 
brother,  to  tear  me  up  after  this  sort. 

The  doctrines  charged  upon  me  are  not  recent.  I  am  not 
accused  of  apostasy  from  opinions  once  received  and  professed, 
nor  of  innovation  in  the  introduction  of  notions  till  now  unheard 
of  The  doctrines  I  maintain  existed  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  before  I  was  born.  I  was  ordained,  on  examination, 
and  on  a  profession  of  that  same  faith  for  holding  and  pub- 
lishing which  I  am  now  to  be  tried  as  a  heretic.  In  the 
Presbytery  which  ordained  me  there  were  men  of  the  old  and 
of  what  was  then  called  the  new  divinity  (though  it  was  thirty- 
five  years  ago),  and  the  vote  for  my  ordination  was  unanimous ; 
and  I  was  accordingly  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  Long 
Island.  I  do  not  say  that  I  subscribed  the  Confesssion  of 
Faith  at  that  time,  under  the  declaration  that  it  contained  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  I  was  not 
prepared  at  that  time  to  say  so.  I  had  not  then  studied  it 
enough,  nor  had  I  been  enough  charged  with  heresy,  to  give 
keenness  to  my  investigation  of  its  meaning.  I  signed  it,  as 
all  other  ministers  in  the  Church  sign  it,  as  containing,  "  the 
systems  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  holy  Scriptures;"  and  I 
subscribed  it  sincerely. 

The  doctrines  on  which  I  am  accused  are  not  matters  of 
mere  metaphysical  speculation  ;  but  they  are  truths  of  which 
I  find  it  necessary  to  make  a  constant  use  in  the  performance 
of  my  pastoral  and  ministerial  duties;  and  which,  of  all 
others,  I  have  found  most  efficacious  in  producing  conviction 
of  sin.  and  the  conversion  of  souls  to  God.  It  has  no  doubt 
been  necessary  to  guard  against  the  perversion  of  these  doc- 
trines, as  it  is  in  regard  to  all  other  doctrines :  for,  as  Horace 
says,  ■'  If  the  vessel  be  not  clean,  whatever  you  pour  into  it 

VOL.  IlL  17 


194  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

Tvill  turn  to  vinegar.'^  But  ministers,  surely,  are  not  respons- 
ible for  all  that  perversion  of  the  truth  they  preach  of  Avhich 
others  are  often  guilty.  I  do  not  regard  myself  as  standing 
here  as  an  insulated  individual  suspected  of  heresy.  I  do 
not  believe  I  am  suspected  of  heresy,  or  ever  have  been,  to 
any  considerable  extent.  I  do  not  feel  as  if  I  stood  here 
alone,  to  be  sifted  and  scrutinized,  to  see  whether  I  am  worthy 
of  a  standing  in  the  Church,  or  ought  to  be  excommunicated 
as  a  heretic.  I  am  one  of  many  who  beheve  the  same  doc- 
trines that  I  do.  And  if  any  man  shall  be  enabled  to  make  the 
truths  of  the  Gospel  tell  with  greater  effect  on  the  hearts  and 
consciences  of  sinners  than  I  have  made  them  tell,  I  will  bless 
God  for  it.  No  man  shall  be  envied  by  me  because  his 
ministry  has  been  more  successful  than  my  own.  My  heart, 
I  trust,  will  ever  be  a  stranger  to  any  such  feelings. 

The  charges  against  me  are  heresy,  slander,  and  hypocrisy ; 
but  they  all  turn  on  the  charge  of  heresy.  For,  if  the  doctrines 
I  teach  are  according  to  the  Word  of  God  and  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  then  I  am  neither  a  slanderer  nor  a  hypocrite.  It 
is  said  that  I  have  professed  to  agree  with  the  standards  of 
our  Church,  and  yet  know  that  profession  to  be  false ;  while 
I,  on  the  contrary,  say  that  I  do  concur  with  those  standards 
as  I  understand  them.  If  I  have  mistaken  their  meanins:,  still 
the  charge  is  not  sustained.  Ah !  Sir,  there  must  be  some 
eye  which  can  look  in  here  [laying  his  hand  on  his  bosom],  or 
there  must  be  some  clear  evidence  outside,  before  it  may  be 
said  that  I  have  told  a  lie.  I  said  that  I  believed,  on  further 
inquiry,  and  I  believe  it  now^,  that  on  the  points  involved  in 
this  controversy  our  Confession  of  Faith  contains  the  truth, 
the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  If  I  was  guilty 
of  hypocrisy  in  making  that  declaration  before  the  Synod,  I 
now  repeat  the  offence.     I  may  find  out  that  on  some  points 


TRIAL    BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  195 

I  have  mistaken  his  meaning ;  and,  if  I  do,  I  will  say  so. 
But  I  am  honest  in  my  past  and  present  declarations. 

The  topics  of  my  alleged  heresy  respect, 

1st.  The  foundation  of  moral  obligation;  or  the  natural 
ability  of  man  as  a  free  agent,  and  subject  of  moral  govern- 
ment, to  obey  the  Gospel. 

2d.  The  moral  inability  of  man,  as  a  sinner  entirely  de- 
praved, to  do  anything  which  includes  evangelical  obedience 
and  secures  pardon  and  eternal  life ;  as  consisting  entirely  in  his 
will,  or  obstinate,  voluntary  aversion  from  God  and  the  Gospel. 

3d.  The  origin  of  this  moral  impotency ;  or  the  relation 
between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  and  the  effecton  them  of 
his  sin, 

4th.  The  properties  of  all  personal  sin  as  voluntary. 

5th.  The  efficient  and  instrumental  cause,  and  the  conse- 
quences of  regeneration. 

6  th.  The  nature  of  Christian  character  as  complex  or 
perfect. 

My  first  reply,  then,  to  these  several  charges  of  doctrinal 
heresy,  is  that  what  I  have  believed,  and  have  taught  on 
these  points  through  all  my  public  ministry,  is  neither  heresy 
nor  error,  but  is  in  accordance  with  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
Confession  of  Faith. 

My  second  reply  is,  that  if  in  any  respect  they  differ  from 
what  shall  be  decided  to  be  the  true  exposition  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  they  include  nothing  at  variance  with  the  funda- 
mental articles  of  the  system  of  doctrine  it  contains  ;  and  are 
such  as  have  characterized  the  members  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  from  the  beginning,  and  have  been  recognized  in 
various  forms  as  not  inconsistent  with  subscription  to  the  Con- 
fession, and  an  honest  and  honorable  standing  in  the  Church. 

Before  I  proceed,  it  will  be  necessary  to  say  a  word  about 


196  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

creeds,  and  subscription  to  creeds,  and  the  rights  of  private 

interpretation  and  free  inquiry. 

I     1.  And,  first,  they  are  not  a  substitute  for  the  Bible,  but  a 

concise  epitome  of  what  is  believed  to  be  the  meaning  of  the 

Bible. 

2.  They  originate  from  the  discrepancies  of  human  opinion, 
and  the  necessity  of  united  views  within  certain  limits,  in 
order  to  comj)lacency,  confidence  and  practical  cooperation. 
Generally  they  do  not  aim  at  a  verbal  and  exact  and  universal 
agreement ;  but  so  far  as  afibrds  evidence  of  Christian  charac- 
ter, and  lays  a  foundation  for  united  action.  The  attempt  of 
universal  and  exact  conformity  must  split  the  Church  up  into 
small  and  consequently  feeble  and  impotent  departments,  and 
of  course  weaken  her  associated  power  and  moral  influence. 

Whatever  differences  of  opinion  do  not  destroy  the  unity  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,  and  are  consistent  with  fel- 
lowship and  cooperation,  may  be  tolerated :  and  hence  you  find 
that  in  proportion  as  you  insist  upon  specific  accuracy  you 
render  your  denomination  small  and  insignificant,  in  com- 
parison with  the  numbers  and  the  wealth,  and  the  amount  of 
influence  and  moral  power  in  society,  which  it  ought  to  em- 
brace ;  and  thus  prevent  that  momentum  for  good  which  the 
collected  body  ought  to  exert.  The  true  policy,  and  that  which 
has  been  pursued,  is  to  push  the  requirement  of  conformity 
only  so  far  as  will  enable  the  masses  of  men  combined  under 
the  same  profession  of  truth  to  be  large  and  weighty,  to  have 
power  and  effect  in  giving  a  healthy  tone  to  public  sentiment, 
and  carry  forward  the  great  designs  which  the  Gospel  was 
intended  to  accomphsh  in  the  world. 

3.  Churches  of  every  name  are  voluntary  associations,  and, 
on  the  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  have  a  right 
to  agree  in  respect  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline  by  which 


TRIAL    BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  197 

tliey  will  promote  their  own  edification.  The  exclusion  is  no 
encroachment  on  the  rights  of  others.  Those  who  differ  from 
me  in  sentiment  have  no  right  to  be  judges  of  my  liberty,  or 
to  encroach  on  my  comfort,  edification  or  useful  action ;  but 
may  seek  their  own  edification  with  others  who  agree  with 
them  in  their  own  way.  This  is  the  origin  of  different  de- 
nominations, and  indispensable  in  order  to  practical  and 
efficient  action. 

4.  The  exposition  of  onr  Confession  of  Faith  appertains,  of 
necessity,  in  the  first  instance,  to  those  who  subscribe  it,  and 
are  bound  by  it.  Each  subscriber  must,  for  himself,  attach 
some  definite  import  to  the  terms,  and  all  have  an  equal  right 
to  their  own  interpretation  in  the  first  instance,  and  no 
individual  has  any  authority  to  decide,  efficaciously,  in  respect 
to  his  brother,  what  is  the  plain  and  obvious  sense ;  but,  in 
cases  of  difference,  attended  with  inconvenience,  it  is  to  be 
referred  t(3  the  higher  judicatories,  and  their  decision  settles 
the  construction, — just  as  every  man  judges  for  himself  of  the 
laws,  and  of  his  own  rights  of  property,  until  discrepant 
claims  demand  a  reference  to  the  courts  for  an  authoritative 
exposition  of  the  law.  The  decision  of  the  highest  judicatory 
is  the  meanino;  of  the  Bible  accordino;  to  the  intent  of  those 
who  agree  to  walk  together.  I  certainly  have  no  right,  in 
the  exercise  of  my  philosophy,  or  biblical  exposition,  or  free 
inquiry,  to  set  it  aside.  If  I  change  my  opinions  so  as  to 
interfere  with  the  bond  of  union,  it  is  my  right  to  leave  the 
Church  :  but  I  have  no  right  by  my  liberty  to  make  inroads 
on  the  peace  and  edification  of  others. 

In  respect  to  the  right  of  private  interpretation,  in  the  first 
instance,  I  presume  I  must  have  misunderstood  my  brother 
Wilson  when  he  says  the  Confession  is  not  to  be  explained. 
That  is  popery.     The  papists  have  no  right  of  private  judg- 

VOL.  TTT.  17* 


198  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

ment.  They  must  believe  as  the  Pope  and  council  believe, 
and  may  believe  no  otherwise.  They  are  forbidden  to  exer- 
cise their  own  understanding,  and  must  receive  words  and 
doctrines  in  the  sense  prescribed  and  prepared  for  them.  I 
cannot  suppose  my  brother  so  holds ;  but  that  when  he  sub- 
scribes the  Confession,  he  subscribes  to  what,  at  the  time,  he 
understands  to  be  its  meaning.  "Who  else  is  to  judge  for  him  ? 
Is  the  Pope  to  be  called  in?  Is  he  to  ask  a  General  Council 
what  the  Confession  means  ?  Does  he  not  look  at  it  with  his 
own  eyes,  and  interpret  it  with  his  own  understanding  7  But, 
as  I  understand  my  brother,  he  insists  that  there  is  to  be  no 
explanation,  but  that  every  expression  of  doctrinal  sentiment 
is  to  be  placed  side  by  side  with  the  Confession,  and  measured 
by  it :  just  as  you  would  put  two  tables  side  by  side,  to  see  if 
they  are  of  the  same  size.  You  are  to  try  the  sermon  and 
the  Confession  by  the  ear,  and  see  if  they  sound  alike.  If 
they  do  not,  the  sermon  is  heretical,  and  the  author*  a  heretic. 
Can  this  be  his  meaning  ? 

It  is  admitted  that  the  Church  is  a  voluntary  association. 
None  are  obliged  to  join  it.  But,  under  affinity  of  views  and 
sentiments,  a  number  of  individuals  come  together  to  form 
themselves  into  one  body.  How  are  they  to  find  out  what  opin- 
ions they  do  hold  ?  It  must  be  by  giving  an  account  of  what 
each  man  understands  to  be  religious  truth  revealed  from  God. 
If  they  have  no  standard,  they  proceed  to  form  one ;  or,  if 
one  has  been  formed,  they  look  over  it  together  to  see  whether 
they  agree  with  it,  and  if  they  do  so  agree,  they  make  this 
standard  the  symbol  of  their  faith,  and  thus  become  affiliated 
with  other  churches  holding  the  same  opinions.  I  admit  that 
when  they  have  thus  examined,  explained,  and  assented  to  a 
common  standard,  they  are  bound  by  it  ]  and  if  any  one  alters 
his  opinion  afterwards  to  such  an  extent  that  the  community 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  199 

becomes  dissatisfied, —  to  such  an  extent  as  to  break  the  bond 
of  union,  and  be  unable  any  longer  to  walk  with  his  brethren, 
—  he  must  withdraw  ;  or,  if  he  refuses  to  withdraw,  he  must 
be  put  out.  In  joining  the  Presbyterian  Church,  each  indi- 
vidual member  —  unless  he  comes  in  as  an  ignoramus,  with- 
out knowing  what  he  professes  —  does  explain  her  standards 
for  himself.  He  must  do  it,  and  he  has  a  right  to  do  it, 
unless  his  joining  the  Church  means  nothing  and  professes 
nothing.  If  it  does  mean  anything,  it  must  mean  to  him  what 
he  understands  it  to  mean ;  and  of  this  he  must,  in  the  first 
instance,  be  himself  the  judge.  This  is  the  sixth  time  I  have 
endeavored  to  explain  my  meaning  on  this  subject;  and  I 
have  been  constantly  told  that  I  am  teaching  Independency. 
I  deny  that  it  is  Independency,  and  insist  that  it  is  Presby- 
terianism  and  common  sense.  I  say  that  each  minister  and 
each  member  has  as  good  a  right  to  his  own  exposition  of  the 
common  standard  as  another  has ;  and  so  I  told  my  brother 
Wilson.  I  have  as  good  a  right  to  call  you  a  heretic,  because 
your  exposition  of  the  Confession  does  not  agree  with  my  view 
of  it,  as  you  have  to  call  me  a  heretic,  because  my  understand- 
ing of  the  Confession  does  not  agree  with  yours.  You  say  that 
I  am  a  heretic  according  to  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of 
our  standards.  But  your  "plain  and  obvious  meaning"  is 
not  my  "plain  and  obvious  meaning;"  and  who  is  to  be 
umpire  between  us  7  The  constitution  has  provided  one. 
My  brother  Wilson  and  I  must  go  to  the  Presbytery.  I  have 
no  right  to  traduce  my  brother,  and  call  him  a  heretic,  on  the 
authority  of  my  private  personal  interpretation  of  an  instru- 
ment we  both  profess  to  embrace;  nor  has  he  any  right, 
before  I  have  been  heard  and  judged  by  competent  authority, 
to  vilify  my  character,  to  attack  my  good  name,  to  drag  me 
into  the  public  prints,  and  to  use  his  long-established  and 


200  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

broadly-extended  influence  to  bring  up  a  fog  of  suspicion 
around  me.  For,  what  is  the  character  of  a  minister  of  Jesus 
Christ  7  It  is  like  the  character  of  a  female,  liable  to  be 
tainted  and  ruined  by  the  breath  of  slander.  What  is  more 
natural  to  mankind  than  suspicion  ?  How  ready  men  are  to 
entertain  an  uncharitable  suggestion,  or  an  evil  report,  come 
from  what  source  it  may  !  But,  when  suggestions  not  only, 
but  direct  assertions,  proceed  not  from  an  obscure  or  sus- 
pected source,  but  come  from  years  and  experience,  and  high 
standing  and  wide-spread  influence,  what  stranger  can  come 
and  hope  to  stand  before  it?  In  tlie  form  of  responsible 
accusation  it  might  be  met ;  but  who  can  stand  before  the 

force  of  SLAXDER  7 

Sir,  I  made  no  statements  about  a  loss  of  reputation ;  I 
simply  told  the  truth  in  respect  to  what  this  my  brother  has 
done,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  treated  me,  after  having 
first  invited  me  into  a  strange  place.  I  came  here  on  his 
invitation,  an  entire  stranger :  and,  instead  of  receiving  me 
into  the  open  arms  of  brotherly  affection  ;  instead  of  welcom- 
ing and  sustaining  and  strengthening  me,  as  a  fellow-laborer 
in  a  common  cause ;  instead  of  conciliating  the  public  con- 
fidence ;  instead  of  soothing,  and  comforting,  and  seeking  to 
encourage  and  warm  my  heart,  in  a  great  and  arduous 
undertaking,  in  an  untried  field, —  he  did  what  in  him  lay  to 
weaken  my  hands,  to  discourage  my  heart,  and  to  multiply  a 
thousand-fold  those  difficulties  which  were  inseparable  from 
my  situation,  and  thus  to  thwart  every  good  and  holy  end  for 
which  I  believed  that  God  had  called  me  into  this  Western 
world.  He  had  a  perfect  right,  as  I  have  freely  admitted,  on 
proper  evidence,  to  change  the  good  opinion  he  had  at  first 
entertained  of  me ;  but,  then,  he  should  have  come  to  me  in 
frankness,  he  should  have  taken  me  by  the  hand,  and  he 


TRIAL   BEFORE    TRESBYTERY.  201 

should  have  said  to  mo:  "  My  brother,  I  have  changed  my 
opinion  in  respect  to  your  doctrinal  views.  I  believe  them  to 
be  essentially  erroneous ;  and  I  must,  in  the  discharge  of  a 
good  conscience,"  —  do  what?  Go  to  the  newspapers? 
assail  you  before  the  pubhc  ?  represent  you  as  a  heretic  7  cut 
up  your  influence  ?  tie  your  hands  from  doing  good  7  No ; 
i  must  "  bring  you  to  the  Presbytery.  I  must  prefer  charges 
against  you,  and  I  must  have  a  decision  in  respect  to  the 
opinions  you  hold."  Had  he  done  this, —  had  my  brother 
met  me  so, —  I  would  have  honored  him,  I  would  have  wept 
upon  his  bosom  for  his  brotherly  frankness,  blended  with 
unblenching  integrity. 

And  now,  as  to  what  has  been  said  about  perpetual  quar- 
rels in  this  Presbytery,  I  deny  the  fact.  We  have  had  no 
quarrels.  There  has  not  an  unkind  word  passed  between  my 
brother  Wilson  and  myself,  nor  have  I  any  knowledge  that 
he  entertains  towards  me  the  least  personal  animosity; 
although  I  admit  that  when  two  walk  so  contrary  to  each 
other,  they  are  in  danger  of  it.  Our  differences  are  Ecclesi- 
astical only ;  and  I  am  always  wounded  when  I  hear  it  said 
that  we  have  quarrelled.  When  I  came  here  and  perceived 
that  ministerial  disputation  had  got  into  the  public  papers,  my 
whole  influence  was  exerted  to  silence  the  paper  controversy ; 
and  it  was  done.  And,  although  there  was  much  in  the 
opposing  paper  that  was  grievous  to  be  borne ;  although 
advantage  was  taken  of  the  prejudices  which  prevailed  in  the 
West  against  men  coming  from  the  Eastern  part  of  the  Union ; 
and  although  strenuous  efibrts  were  employed  to  stir  up  that 
feeling,  and  direct  it  against  myself  and  my  ministry  ;  and 
although  broad  caricatures  were  given  of  the  doctrines  I  held 
and  openly  taught, — I  never  wrote  so  much  as  a  line  or  a  word 
in  reply ;  but,  when  I  discovered  that  the  chafing  of  mind 


202  VIEWS   OP   THEOLOGY. 

inevitably  produced  by  these  things  was  finding  its  way  into 
my  church,—  when  I  saw  the  fire  rapidly  spreading,  and  like 
to  break  out,  and  to  embroil  my  brother's  people  and  mine 
in  open  animosities, —  my  friends  know  that  I  prepared  and 
preached  two  sermons  on  the  obligation  of  Christian  meek- 
ness ;  and  they  can  testify  that  the  efibrt  was  blessed  of  God, 
and  that  there  was  a  gi^eat  calm.  It  was,  to  be  sure,  impos- 
sible but  that  some  excitement  should  exist,  when  the  minis- 
ters of  the  two  churches  stood  in  such  an  attitude  toward 
each  other ;  but  from  that  time  the  amount  was  very  small 
and  inconsiderable  ;  and  the  rumor  that  we,  in  this  city,  were 
together  by  the  ears,  contending  and  fighting  and  quarrelling, 
was  false  and  unfounded.  All  who  are  present  can  bear  me 
witness  that  no  such  spirit  prevailed.  The  people  were  quiet, 
the  ministers  were  personally  courteous  ;  all  was  visible  peace 
until  the  time  came  round  for  the  Presbytery  to  assemble. 
But  no  sooner  was  it  met,  than  the  angels  might  weep. 
Brotherly  confidence  had  fled.  That  sweet  and  fraternal 
harmony,  which  ever  ought  to  mark  the  gatherings  of 
Christ's  ministerial  servants,  was  gone.  The  breath  of  the 
Almighty  was  not  upon  us.  The  saints  were  not  refreshed  ; 
sinners  were  not  converted.  Our  coming  to2;ether  was  not 
for  the  better,  but  always  for  the  worse.  But  now  I  pray 
God  that  the  result  of  this  examination  may  be  such  as  to 
put  an  end  forever  to  this  state  of  things ;  that  it  may  issue 
in  reestablishing  our  mutual  confidence  in  each  other's  sound- 
ness and  integrity ;  or,  if  I  am  a  heretic,  that  the  fact  may 
be  proved,  and  I  may  go  to  my  own  place. 

But,  to  return  to  the  question  respecting  the  right  of 
private  interpretation.  If  two  ministers  do  not  agree  in 
their  understanding  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  let  them  not 
contend,  and  call  hard  names,  and  bite  and  devour  each  other  ; 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  203 

but  let  tliem  go  before  the  Presbytery,  and,  if  not  satiafied 
there,  let  them  go  to  the  Synod ;  and,  if  the  sentence  of  the 
Synod  cannot  quiet  the  minds,  let  them  carry  up  the  question 
to  the  General  Assembly,  and  then  the  man  who  is  wrong, 
and  perseveres  in  being  wrong,  must  go  out  of  the  Church. 
We  arc  not  without  a  remedy.  The  constitution  has  provided 
for  us  a  competent  tribunal.  The  ministers  who  differ  come 
before  that  tribunal  on  equal  ground ;  the  cause  is  heard, 
and  the  question  settled ;  and  he  who  will  not  submit  to  the 
sentence  must  leave  the  body.  It  is,  as  I  said,  just  like  the 
rights  of  property.  Two  men  think  that  they  own  a  certain 
portion  of  lands  or  goods,  and  both  suppose  that  they  have 
good  and  valid  reasons  for  that  opinion ;  but,  instead  of  revil- 
ing each,  or  coming  to  blows,  they  take  their  difference  before 
the  court,  and  each  has  a  right  to  carry  it  up  by  appeal,  till 
he  reaches  the  tribunal  of  last  resort :  and  there  the  matter  is 
settled.  Now,  I  hope  that  on  this  subject  I  shall  never  be 
misunderstood  again.  I  have  done  my  best  to  make  my 
meaning  plain ;  and,  if  I  am  still  misunderstood,  I  must 
despair  of  ever  being  able  to  remove  the  misunderstanding. 
This  is  my  sixth  public  effort  to  do  so.  If  this  does  not 
succeed,  I  must  give  up  the  attempt. 

The  question  now  at  issue  turns,  then,  upon  an  exposition 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  not  merely  as  a  human  formula, 
but  as  our  admitted  epitome  of  what  the  Bible  teaches.  I 
am  charged  with  a  fundamental  departure  from  the  true 
intent  of  the  Confession.  I  claim  that  I  understand  and 
interpret  it  truly ;  or  that,  if  there  be  any  variation,  it  effects 
only  such  points  of  difference  as  have  in  every  form  been 
decided  to  be  consistent  with  edification  and  an  honest  sub- 
scription and  an  honorable  standing  in  the  Church.  The 
Confession  is  not  a  mere  human  composition.    The  statement, 


204  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

indeed,  is  made  by  man;  but  it  is  the  statement  of  what  God 
has  said,  and  is  to  us  who  receive  it  as  God's  word.  Dr. 
Wilson  has  said  that  we  are  bound  to  abide  by  it  so  far  as  it 
is  consistent  with  God's  Word ;  but  we  have  settled  that,  in 
receiving  it  as  the  symbol  of  our  faith.  We  profess  that  it  is 
in  all  its  parts  according  to  God's  Word.  What  is  its  true 
sense  is.  in  case  of  dispute,  to  be  settled  by  the  courts  above  ; 
but  we  have  agreed  to  submit  to  it  and  be  bound  by  it ;  and 
if  we  do  not  like  the  final  decision  of  the  supreme  judicatory, 
no  course  is  left  but  to  go  out  of  the  Church.  For  —  to  a 
man  remaining  in  its  fellowship  —  I  deny  and  repudiate  all 
right  of  private  judgment,  in  opposition  to  the  public  decision 
of  the  whole  Church, 

The  whole  of  the  argument  on  which  I  am  now  to  enter  is 
an  argument  that  has  respect  to  the  true  exposition  of  our 
Confession  of  Faith.  The  argument  will  take  a  wide  range  ; 
but  it  is  all  directed  to  that  point.  And  I  am  sorry  that  the 
point  on  which  the  whole  turns  my  brother  Wilson  did  not 
attempt  to  explain.  He  assumed  that  there  is  but  one  mean- 
ing to  the  term  ability.  This  I  deny.  I  hold,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  it  has  two  meanings,  as  well  in  the  Bible  as  in  our 
standards.  He  admits  only  one.  His  labor,  therefore,  has 
been  labor  lost,  as  it  respects  me.  He  admits  one  sense  of 
the  term ;  but,  if  our  standards  admit  two,  then  he  has  got  but 
one  part  of  the  truth ;  while  I  contend  that  I  have  got  both 
parts  of  it,  and  that  therefore  his  argument  falls  short  of  the 
case.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  declaim  on  a  topic  like  this. 
I  feel  that  the  providence  of  God  has  brought  both  my  brother 
and  myself  into  circumstances  of  the  deepest  responsibility. 
It  is  my  hope  that  this  trial  will  be  made  the  occasion,  in  His 
hand,  of  dissipating  mutual  misapprehension,  and  of  bringing 
forth  his  own  precious  truth  into  clearer  light,  and  establishing 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  205 

it  in  a  more  triumphant  and  unanswerable  manner.  I  m\\ 
not  disguise  the  fact  that  I  hope  to  convince  those  who  have 
hitherto  thought  with  my  brother.  I  will  neither  believe  nor 
insinuate  that  the  minds  of  this  Presbytery  are  so  biased 
that  they  cannot  give  an  upright  judgment.  I  do  not  think 
Dr.  Wilson  himself  meant  to  convey  such  an  idea.  I  do 
expect  to  convince  every  minister  and  every  elder,  and  I  am 
almost  sure  I  shall  do  it.  I  rest  not  this  confidence  upon 
myself,  but  upon  the  cause  I  advocate.  I  cherish  the  hope, 
because  I  know  what  truth  is,  and  what  human  nature  is  ;  and 
I  am  perfectly  sure  that  Avhen  the  question  comes  to  be  fairly 
stated  and  distinctly  understood,  there  is  no  man  here  who 
will  say  I  am  guilty  of  heresy.  I  will  even  go  further  than 
this,  and  say  that  I  expect  to  convince  my  brother  Wilson 
himself;  and  I  have  told  him  so.  0  !  if  he  would  but  have 
given  me  a  chance  to  do  so  two  years  ago  !  IIoay  would  our 
hands  have  been  mutually  strengthened,  and  how  might  the 
cause  of  truth  and  righteousness  have  been  advanced  by  our 
united  efforts  !  *  I  mourn  to  think  how  we  have  both  suffered 
from  the  Avant  of  such  an  explanation.  I  grieve  to  reflect 
upon  the  pulling  down,  and  the  holding  back,  and  all  the  want 
of  cordial  and  brotherly  cooperation.  And  I  do  trust  that  God 
has  brought  us  to  this  point  that  all  the  misunderstanding 
may  be  cleared  up,  and  all  misrepresentation  forever  cease. 
I  shall  labor  for  this  end  as  hard  as  ever  I  labored  with  a 
convicted  sinner  to  bring  him  to  the  Lord  my  Master ;  and  I 
hope  I  shall  succeed. 

I  am  very  sensible  that  I  have  undertaken  a  great  work,  in 
attempting  to  convince  my  brother  on  this  subject.  And  I  am 
aware  that  it  is  incumbent  on  me  to  go  to  the  business  wit- 
tingly ;  and  I  mean  to.  The  task  of  expounding  important 
doctrinal  truth  is  not  a  light,  extempore  affair.     Just  exposi- 

VOL.  in.  18 


206  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

tion  is  regulated  by  fixed  laws,  laws  as  fixed  as  those  which 
regulate  the  motions  of  the  universe ;  because  they  are  founded 
in  truth,  and  in  the  nature  of  things.  And  what  are  these 
rules  and  principles  1 

1.  The  first  is  that  no  writing  or  instrument  of  any  kind 
is  to  be  expounded  in  contradiction  to  itself  So  that,  if  there 
are  two  possible  interpretations,  that  which  harmonizes  the 
instrument  with  itself  is  to  be  received  as  the  true  interpreta- 
tion. For  it  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  a  company  of  pious 
and  sensible  men,  with  full  deliberation  and  under  the  highest 
responsibility,  will  draw  up  a  paper  which  contradicts  itself 
They  may  through  infirmity  do  this,  but  no  such  presumption 
is  to  be  admitted,  a  j^riori. 

2.  The  instrument  is  to  be  explained  according  to  tho 
known  nature  and  attributes  of  the  subject.  Thus,  when 
man  is  spoken  of  in  terms  borrowed  from  the  natural  world, 
and  these  terms,  literally  received,  would  imply  impotency, 
we  are  not  to  carry  over  their  physical  meaning  into  the 
moral  kingdom.  "When  God  says  he  will  take  away  the  heart 
of  stone,  if  he  was  speaking  of  a  mountain  we  might  well 
understand  that  he  meant  to  remove  the  granite  which  was 
in  the  midst  of  it.  But  when  he  applies  this  language  to  a 
moral  being,  to  a  free  agent,  the  language  is  not  to  be  taken 
as  literal,  but  as  figurative ;  and  as  meaning  to  take  away  a 
moral  quality,  namely,  hatred  to  God  and  aversion  to  his  law. 

3.  The  instrument  is  to  be  construed  with  reference  to 
controversies  and  import  of  terms  which  prevailed  at  the  time 
it  was  written,  and  the  meaning  of  theological  technics  em- 
ployed in  them. 

Dr.  Wilson  has  gone  to  Johnson's  dictionary  to  find  out  the 
meaning  of  theological  terms.  But  he  ought  to  have  remem- 
bered that  there  are  few  dictionaries  which  undertake  to  define 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY  207 

the  meaning  of  either  theological  or  of  law  terms.  The 
technics  of  one  are  as  much  out  of  the  ordinary  road  as  those 
of  the  other.  Physicians  would  not  expect  to  find  in  an 
ordinary  dictionary  the  definition  of  medical  words ;  and  the 
same  holds  of  every  profession.  They  all  have  technics  of 
their  own,  for  which  you  go  in  vain  to  a  general  dictionary. 
I  say  you  must  go  to  the  time  when  the  instrument  was 
written,  and  inquire  what  was  then  the  import  of  the  technical 
words  and  phrases  employed  in  the  instrument  to  be  ex- 
pounded. So,  if  we  would  understand  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
we  must  find  out  in  what  sense  the  words  ''  guilt "  and  '•  pun- 
ishment "  were  employed  by  the  theologians  of  that  day.  For 
a  right  explication  of  those  terms  will  go  far  towards  settling 
the  meaning  of  the  whole  Confession.  Dr.  Wilson  cannot  but 
know  that  language  never  stands  still,  because  society  never 
stands  still.  The  meaning  of  a  word  at  this  day  is  not  neces- 
sarily the  same  with  the  meaning  of  that  word  two  hundred 
years  ago  ;  and  so  every  sound  lawyer  will  tell  you.  They 
have  to  go  back  to  the  days  of  Judge  Hale  and  Queen 
Elizabeth.  It  will  not  do  to  go  to  Webster's  dictionary  at 
this  day,  if  we  would  rightly  interpret  ancient  statutes ;  no 
more  will  it  do  in  respect  to  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

4.  It  must  be  interpreted  by  a  comparison  with  anterior 
and  cotemporaneous  creeds  and  authors  :  in  a  word,  by  the 
theological  ^isiis  loqiiendi  of  the  age ;  because  this  is  according 
to  analogy.  The  Reformers  were  all  the  same  sort  of  men  ; 
they  were  all,  with  some  slight  variation,  placed  in  substantially 
the  same  circumstances,  and  it  is  wonderful  to  see  how  much 
alike  the  creeds  adopted  in  difierent  parts  of  Christendom  were. 
Now,  if  the  ancient  meaning  of  terms  be  in  any  case  different 
from  the  meaning  of  the  same  terms  in  our  day,  the  ancient 
meaning  cuts  its  way.     For  our  creeds  were  born  of  them. 


208  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

And  that  sense  of  terms,  which  was  the  analogical  meaning  of 
those  who  had  all  around  them  the  authors  of  cotemporaneous 
creeds,  must  be  our  guide  in  construction. 

5.  The  instrument  must  be  interpreted  according  to  the 
reigning  philosophy  of  the  day  in  which  it  was  written ;  and 

6.  According  to  the  intuitive  perceptions  and  the  common 
sense  and  consciousness  of  all  mankind. 

To  illustrate  the  propriety  of  this  rule,  let  me  give  an 
example.  I  know  that  there  is  a  propensity  to  reject  all 
philosophy  when  we  come  to  the  subject  of  creeds ;  and  yet 
there  is  not  a  human  being  that  does  not  necessarily  employ 
a  philosophy  of  some  sort  in  interpreting  the  Bible,  and  in 
interpreting  every  creed  founded  upon  it.  The  New  Testa- 
ment cannot  rightly  be  understood  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
philosophy  of  the  Gnostics.  And,  in  like  manner,  a  man  must 
know  what  was  the  philosophy  of  the  Armenian  system,  in 
order  rightly  to  apprehend  that  portion  of  the  creed  which 
relates  to  that  subject.  I  will  only  say,  in  respect  to  the 
intuitive  perceptions  of  men  as  a  rule  of  exposition,  that  it  is 
God  who  made  men,  and  that  he  made  both  their  body  and 
their  mind ;  and  the  Bible,  without  entering  on  a  system 
of  pathology,  everywhere  takes  it  for  granted  that  God 
thoroughly  understands  human  nature.  And  here  I  will 
observe  incidentally,  that  it  is  a  good  way,  and  one  of  the  best 
ways,  to  study  mental  philosophy,  to  collect  from  the  Bible 
that  which  it  assumes ;  and  this  was  the  only  way  in  which  I 
first  studied  it.  In  conclusion,  I  observe  that  to  enter  upon 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  for  the  purpose  of  exposition,  without 
these  attendant  lamps,  is  to  insure  misinterpretation  and  con- 
tention and  every  evil  work. 

I  commence  with  the  subject  of  Free  Agency,  or  the 
Natural  Ability  of  Man,  as  the  foundation  of  obligation  and 
moral  government. 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  209 

I  begin  with  this  first  because,  as  Dr.  Wilson  has  said,  it  is 
*'  the  hinge  of  the  whole  controversy."  This  is  eminently  true. 
It  is  the  different  theories  of  free  agency  and  accountability 
which  have,  in  all  acres,  a^^itated  the  Church.  There  is  not  a 
discussion  about  doctrine,  at  this  time,  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  which  does  not  originate  in  discrepant  opinions 
respecting  the  created  constitutional  powers  of  man  as  a  free 
agent,  and  the  grounds  of  moral  obligation  and  personal 
accountability.  Settle  the  philosophy  of  free  agency, —  what 
are  the  powers  of  a  free  agent, —  how  they  are  put  together, 
and  how  they  operate  in  personal  accountable  action, —  and 
controversy  among  all  the  friends  of  Christ  will  cease.  It 
has  been  often  said  that  it  never  can  be  settled.  I  believe 
no  such  thing.  The  perplexities  of  the  schoolmen  are  passing 
away,  and  the  symptoms  of  approximation  to  an  enlightened 
and  settled  opinion  among  all  evangelical  denominations  are 
beginning  to  appear.  I  have  no  discoveries  to  publish  on  this 
subject, —  no  favorite  views  of  my  own  to  propagate.  It  has 
been  my  great  desire  to  finish  my  course  and  keep  the  faith 
without  any.  The  doctrines  of  free  agency  and  natural 
ability,  which  I  hold  and  advocate,  have  been  the  revealed 
doctrines  of  the  Church  from  the  beginning.  They  are  not 
new  divinity,  nor  new  school ;  and,  though  I  am  compelled 
to  admit  that  there  are  some  in  the  Church  who,  when  they 
are  correctly  explained,  do  not  hold  them,  the  number,  in  my 
belief,  is  very  small,  who  do  not,  when  all  misapprehension  is 
removed,  believe  the  doctrines  just  as  I  believe  them.  They 
are  also  fundamental  doctrines,  which,  if  misinterpreted,  will 
always  environ  the  Calvinistic  system  with  invincible  prejudice 
and  odium  without,  and  fill  it  with  fierce  conflicts  within. 
But,  when  correctly  understood,  they  will  pour  the  stream  of 

VOL.  III.  18* 


210  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

truth,  pure,  and  full,  and  clear  as  crystal,  through  all  the 
channels  of  the  associated  system. 

The  doctrine  claimed  by  the  prosecutor  as  the  true  doctrine 
of  the  Confession  and  the  Bible  is,  that  to  fallen  man  there 
remains  no  ability  of  any  kind  or  degree  to  obey  the  Gospel ; 
that,  though  he  is  a  free  agent,  it  is  a  free  agency  which 
includes  no  ability  of  any  kind  to  obey  God ;  and  that  none 
is  necessary  to  constitute  perfect  obligation  to  obey,  and  per- 
fect accountability  for  disobedience ;  —  that  the  obhgation  to 
obey  may  be  infinite,  and  the  punishment  for  disobedience 
just  and  eternal,  where  the  obedience  claimed  is  a  natural 
impossibility,  as  really  as  the  creation  of  the  world,  or  the 
raisinoj  of  the  dead. 

Dr.  Wilson  has  made  a  distinct  avowal  that  free  agency 
and  moral  obligation  to  obey  law  do  not  include  any  ability 
of  any  kind. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  I  limited  that  avowal  to  man  in  his  fallen 
state. 

Dr.  Beecher.  —  Yes,  so  I  understood  it.  We  are  talking 
about  man  in  his  fallen  state.  Dr.  Wilson,  then,  admits  that 
it  requires  no  ability  of  any  sort^  in  fallen  man,  to  make  him 
an  accountable  agent,  and  a  subject  of  God's  moral  govern- 
ment. 

Dr.  Wilson.  —  With  respect  to  fallen  man,  /  do. 

Now,  it  must  be  admitted  that  in  this  avowal  Dr.  Wilson 
has  the  merit  of  magnanimous  honesty.  He  is  fairly  out  on 
a  subject  where,  with  many  a  man  for  an  opponent,  I  should 
have  had  to  ferret  him  out.  There  can,  at  least,  be  no  doubt 
as  to  what  Dr.  Wilson  does  hold.  If  we  are  to  go  to  Synod, 
this  point  will  be  clear;  and  when  the  report  is  published,  no 
man  can  misunderstand  this  part  of  it.  It  is  seldom  that  we 
meet  a  man  who  would  be  willing  to  march  right  up  to  such  a 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  211 

position,  -without  winking  or  mystification.  But  Dr.  Wilson 
has  (lone  it  unflinchingly  and  thoroughly.  He  interprets  the 
Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Bible  as  teaching  that  God  may 
and  does  command  men  to  perform  natural  impossibilities, 
and  justly  punish  them  forever  for  not  obeying, —  though  they 
could  no  more  obey  than  they  could  create  a  world  !  And  he 
has  riveted  the  matter  by  his  mental  philosophy  of  the  will. 
Instead  of  supposing  a  mind  with  powers  of  agency,  acting 
freely  in  view  of  motives,  he  supposes  the  will  to  be  entirely 
dependent  on  the  constitution  and  condition  of  body  and  mind, 
and  external  circumstances ;  and  controlled  by  these  as  abso- 
lutely as  straws  on  the  bosom  of  a  river  are  controlled  by  the 
motions  of  the  water. 

It  is  claimed,  then,  by  the  prosecutor,  that  the  Confession 
of  Faith  and  the  Bible  teach  that  fallen  man  has  no  ability 
of  any  kind  to  obey  God,  and  that  none  is  necessary  to 
perfect  obligation  and  the  just  desert  of  eternal  punishment. 

Now,  my  alleged  heresy  consists  in  believing  and  teaching 
that  the  constitutional  powers  of  a  free  agent,  including  the 
possibility  of  their  correct  exercise  in  obedience,  are  necessary 
to  moral  obligation,  and  to  reward  and  punishment,  under  the 
benevolent,  wise,  and  just  government  of  God. 

And  I  do  hold  and  teach,  that  while  to  a  just  UahiUty  to 
all  the  consequences  of  the  fall  on  our  constitution  and 
character,  no  ability  of  any  kind  on  our  part  to  prevent  or 
avert  the  calamity  existed,  or  was  necessary, —  the  evil  com- 
ing on  his  posterity,  as  the  curse  of  his  disobedience  through 
our  relation  to  him  as  our  federal  head, —  yet,  to  a  personal 
accountability  to  law  and  desert  of  punishment,  ability  of  some 
kind  or  degree  is  certainly  indispensable.  Some  possibihty  of 
obedience  in  adult  man  is  indispensable  to  personal  obligation, 
and  a  just  punishment  for  transgression.     Liability  to  be 


212  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

involved  in  the  consequences,  natural  and  moral,  of  the  con- 
duct of  those  who  represent  us,  is  a  law  of  human  society, 
and  probably  a  law  of  the  social  inteUigent  universe, —  and, 
as  it  existed  and  operated  in  the  case  of  Adam  and  his  pos- 
terity, is  doubtless  a  wise,  benevolent,  and  just  constitution. 
But,  while  a  liability  to  suffer  the  consequences  of  another's 
conduct,  on  the  ground  of  a  just  constitution  of  things, 
demands  no  ability  to  avert  the  evil,  accountability  for  per- 
sonal transgression  does  require  some  ability  to  refuse  the 
evil  and  choose  the  good.  There  must  exist  the  faculties  and 
powers  of  a  free  agent,  involving  a  possibility  of  right  action. 
Faculties  that  can  do  nothing,  and  powers  that  have  no  rela- 
tion of  a  cause  to  its  effect, —  that  is,  action, — are  nonentities. 
A  free  agency  that  cannot  act  at  all,  in  any  way,  is  no  free 
agency  •  and  a  free  agency  that  has  no  power  of  a  right 
action  is,  in  that  respect,  no  free  agency.  There  must  be  an 
agent  qualified  to  act  as  he  is  requu^ed  to  act, —  sometliing 
in  his  constitution  which  qualifies  him  to  be  governed  by  law, 
and  rewards  and  punishments, —  as  matter  and  animals  are 
not  qualified.  There  must  be  something  which  qualifies  for 
obedience,  and  creates  obligation  which  renders  obedience 
possible  ;  and  makes  it  reasonable  that  it  should  be  rendered 
and  rewarded,  and  just  that  disobedience  should  be  punished. 
Now,  I  have  taught,  and  I  do  hold,  with  our  Confession,  that 
the  mind  of  man,  though  in  a  fallen  state,  is  still  endued  by 
its  Creator  "  with  that  natural  liberty  that  it  is  neither  forced, 
nor  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  determined  to^do  good 
or  evil,  nor  is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creature," — 
nor  is  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  (that  is,  the 
power  of  the  soul  to  choose  life  or  death  in  the  view  of  motives) 
taken  away,  but  rather  established.  This  is  what  I  mean,  and 
all  I  mean,  by  the  natural  ability  of  man  to  obey  the  Gospel. 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  21S 

Material  causes,  while  upheld  by  Heaven,  are  adequate  to 
their  proper  effects ;  and  the  mind  of  man,  though  fallen,  is, 
while  upheld,  a  cause  of  action  sufficient  in  respect  to  the  pos- 
sibihty  of  obedience,  to  create  infinite  obligation  to  obey.  The 
fall  perverted,  but  did  not  destroy,  the  free  agency  of  man. 
It  perverted  the  use  of  his  powers  in  action,  but  did  not  de- 
stroy the  existence  of  those  powers  which  distinguish  man  as 
a  subject  of  moral  government  from  animals,  and  which  lie  at 
the  foundation  of  all  obligation.  This  is  my  alleged  heresy ; 
and  to  decide  that  it  is  a  heresy  is  to  decide  that  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  and  the  Bible  teach  that  to  fallen  man  no  abihty 
of  any  sort  is  necessary  to  constitute  infinite  obligation,  and  a 
just  desert  of  eternal  punishment. 

But,  while  I  thus  insist  on  the  existence  of  the  commensu- 
rate powers  of  an  agent,  as  essential  to  free  agency  and  ac- 
countability, I  do  not  believe,  and  have  never  taught,  that 
actual  obedience  is  essential  to  free  agency ;  or  that  the  free 
agenc}''  which  suffices  to  create  a  perfect  obligation  to  obey 
ever  suffices,  Avithout  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
to  secure  in  fallen  man  even  the  lowest  degree  of  holy  obe- 
dience. On  the  contrary,  I  hold  and  teach  that  such  a  change 
in  the  constitution  of  man  was  produced  by  the  fall  as  creates 
a  universal  and  prevalent  propensity  to  actual  sin, —  to  the 
setting  of  the  affisctions  on  things  below,  and  loving  the  creature 
more  than  God ;  —  preventing  in  all  men  the  existence  of 
hohness,  and  securing  the  existence  of  that  actual  depravity, 
which  is, enmity  against  God,  not  subject  to  his  law,  neither 
indeed  can  be, —  a  bias  which  neutralizes  the  power  of  truth 
and  motives  to  reconcile  men  to  God,  till  it  is  overcome  by  the 
special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration ;  and  which, 
though  impaired  by  that  event,  still  remains  in  the  regenerate 
until  removed  entirely  by  the  Spirit,  in  making  the  soul  of  the 


214  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

saint  meet  for  heaven.  I  only  say,  with  our  Confession,  that 
this  bias  to  actual  sin  acts  not  in  the  form  of  a  coercive  cause, 
creating  a  fatal  and  irresistible  necessity  of  sinning ;  and  of 
course  constitutes  no  excuse  for  actual  sin,  and  no  mitigation 
of  the  curse  due  to  it,  or  abatement  of  God's  boundless  mercy 
in  providing  redemption  for  incorrigible  man.  This  impedi- 
ment to  obedience,  arising  from  a  prevalent  bias  of  nature  and 
actual  aversion  to  spiritual  obedience,  is  called,  in  the  Confes- 
sion and  the  Bible,  inability  to  obey,  on  account,  as  I  suppose, 
of  the  same  certainty  between  their  existence  and  moral  result 
that  appertains  to  natural  causes  and  their  effects ;  and  it  is 
called  a  moral  inability,  to  indicate  that,  though  wrong,  as 
securing  wrong  action  with  unfailing  certainty,  it  does  so  not 
by  a  fatal  necessity  of  sinning,  but  by  an  unnecessary,  un- 
reasonable, inexcusable  aversion  of  the  soul  to  God  and  his 
reasonable  service. 

While  I  teach,  therefore,  the  ability  of  man  as  a  free  agent, 
and  as  the  ground  of  obligation,  I  teach  his  moral  inability  as 
a  sinner, —  the  subject  of  the  carnal  mind,  which  is  enmity 
against  God, —  not  subject  to  his  law,  neither  indeed  can  be. 
■  In  the  true  sense  of  the  terms  as  now  explained,  and  as 
employed  in  the  Confession,  and  in  the  Bible,  and  in  the 
common  and  well-understood  language  of  men,  I  teach  that 
"no  mere  man,  since  the  fall,  has  been  able  perfectly  to  keep 
the  commandments  of  God ;  and  that  the  natural  man  cannot 
understand  and  know  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  because 
they  are  spiritually  discerned ;  and  that  no  man  can  come  to 
Christ,  except  the  Father  draw  him." 

I  proceed  now  to  show  that  the  preceding  account  of  man's 
free  agency,  and  natural  ability,  and  of  his  total  depravity  and 
moral  impotency,  contains  the  doctrine  of  our  Confession,  and 
of  the  Bible. 


TRIAL  BEFOKE   PRESBYTERY.  215' 

The  point  at  issue  is  not  whether  fallen  man  ever  did  or 
ever  -will  act  right  in  a  spiritual  sense,  without  the  regener- 
ation of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  admitted  and  insisted  that  he 
never  did,  and  never  will.  The  point  at  issue  is,  in  what 
manner  the  certainty  of  the  continuous  wrong  action  of  the 
mind  comes  to  pass.  Docs  it  come  to  pass  coerced  or  un- 
coerced by  necessity?  Does  fallen  man  choose  under  the 
influence  of  such  a  constitution  of  body,  and  mind,  and  motive, 
that  every  volition  bears  the  relation  of  an  eficct  to  a  natural 
and  necessitating  cause,  rendering  any  other  choice  than  the 
one  which  comes  to  pass,  impossible  in  existing  circumstances  7 
Or  is  fallen  man  still  an  agent  so  constituted  that  in  every 
act  of  choice  he  is  unconstrained  and  uncoerced  by  any  neces- 
sity, like  that  which  binds  natural  effects  to  their  causes  ?  Is 
the  soul  so  exempt  from  the  laws  of  a  natural  necessity  that 
it  is  never  forced  to  choose  wrong ;  there  existing,  in  every 
case,  the  possibility  and  obligation  growing  out  of  the  possibility 
of  a  different,  or  contrary  choice  ?  The  latter  is  the  view  of 
free  agency  and  accountability  which  I  shall  endeavor  to 
establish  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  and  the  Bible; 
and, 

I.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  God  is  able  to  create 
free  agents,  who,  being  sustained  and  placed  under  the  illumi- 
nation and  influence  of  his  laws  and  perfect  government,  shall 
be  able  to  obey  or  disobey  in  the  regular  exercise  of  the  powers 
of  their  own  mind. 

The  alleged  impossibility  of  created  self-existing  agents, 
acting  independently  of  God,  does  not  touch  the  point ;  for 
the  supposition  of  agency  able  to  choose  the  good  and  refuse 
the  evil  does  not  imply  the  mind's  self-existence,  but  the 
eflBcacy  of  its  powers  while  upheld ;  and  it  might  as  well  be 
said  that  God  cannot  create  natural  causes,  which,  while  he 


216  VIEWS    OF  THEOLOGY. 

upholds  them,  can,  by  their  own  power,  produce  an  effect,  as 
that  he  cannot  create  mind,  which,  while  upheld  by  him,  is 
capable  of  acting  right  or  wrong,  under  the  requirements  and 
motives  of  his  government.  Both  lead  to  Pantheism,  denying 
all  created  causes,  and  making  God  the  only  cause  and  the 
only  agent  in  the  universe. 

There,  is  no  perceptible  difficulty  in  creating  mind,  more 
than  in  creating  matter;  in  creating  active,  than  passive 
existence ;  or  thinking  than  unthinking,  voluntary  than  in- 
voluntary being.  It  is  just  as  conceivable  that  God  should 
create  mind  endowed  with  an  energy  which,  while  it  is  sus- 
tained, is  commensurate  to  every  requisite  action  under  his 
government,  by  its  own  power ;  as  that  he  should  create  pas- 
sive matter,  dependent  for  every  movement  and  change  on 
external  causation. 

How  God  can  originate  existence  of  any  kind  is  incompre- 
hensible, but  no  one  can  prove  it  to  be  impossible.  The 
creation  of  an  intelhgent  universe,  of  free,  accountable  minds, 
capable  of  all  the  responsibihties  of  a  perfect,  eternal  govern- 
ment, is  just  as  conceivable,  therefore,  as  the  creation  of  hills 
and  valleys,  plants  and  animals. 

II.  If  it  be  possible  to  create  and  govern  mind  upon  the 
principles  of  free  agency,  and  a  perfect  and  permanent  moral 
government,  the  presumption  is  strong  that  this  is,  in  fact,  the 
divine  plan.  What  other  conceivable  course  could  the  wisdom 
of  God  devise,  so  comprehensive  of  good  as  the  creation  of  a 
universe  of  mind,  with  its  constitutional  susceptibihties,  and 
active  and  social  and  voluntary  powers,  quahfied  for  all  the 
results  of  a  government  of  perfect  laws,  perfectly  administered? 

It  is  self-evident  that  the  creation  of  unorganized  matter 
could  not  illustrate  the  copiousness  and  power  of  the  Divine 
benevolence.     God  might  amuse  himself  with  curious  work- 


TllIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  2lt 

manshipj  but  how  could  lie  impart  happiness  to  unorganized 
matter  ?  It  is  C(|uallj  clear  that  mere  animal  life  falls,  in 
its  capacity  of  cnjoj^raent,  unspeakably  below  the  capabilities 
of  mind.  How  limited  is  the  range  of  the  monotonous  appe- 
tites !  How  narrow  the  circle  of  mere  fleeting,  instinctive 
action  ;  and  Iioav  feeble  the  momentary  tie  of  natural  affection, 
compared  with  its  corroboration  by  ties  of  blood,  and  habits  of 
intercourse,  and  the  illumination  of  reason,  and  the  powers  of 
memory,  and  the  light  of  an  anticipated  eternity  of  unex- 
tinguished, purified,  augmented  and  reciprocated  friendship  ! 

How  immeasurable  is  that  expansion  of  capacity  in  man, 
above  the  animal,  which  opens  the  eye  of  his  intellect  upon 
the  character,  will,  and  government  of  God ;  which  brings  him 
into  fellowship  with  his  Maker,  and  opens  before  him  the  joys 
of  a  blessed  immortality,  associated  with  a  reasonable  service, 
and  benevolent  activity,  under  the  high  and  perfect  guidance 
of  Heaven  !  \ 

A  single  mind,  through  a  duration  Avhich  will  never  end, 
may  be  capable  of  more  enjoyment  than  it  were,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  possible  to  pour  through  the  narrow  channels  of 
animal  instinct  and  appetite.  The  river  of  pleasure  is  of 
course  represented  as  flowing  from  the  throne  of  God  and  the 
Lamb ;  that  is,  as  being  the  result  of  his  intelligent  creation  and" 
moral  government :  what  an  ocean  of  blessedness,  compared 
to  the  drops  of  the  bucket  which  any  other  conceivable  mode 
of  being  could  have  received  !  A  universe,  that  can  live  in 
the  past,  present  and  future,  and  experience  a  copiousness 
and  variety  of  blessedness  unknown  to  the  moping  animal ! 
To  have  stopped  at  the  limits  of  animahsm,  and  forborne  to 
create  mind,  would  have  been  to  prefer  the  ray  to  the  sun 
—  the  atom  to  the  universe.  It  would  seem  to  be  manifest 
and  certain,  then,  that  for  the  most  perfect  manifestation  of 

VOL.  III.  10 


218  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

his  -wisdom  and  benevolence,  the  Supreme  Intelligence  would 
call  into  being  around  him  other  beings  like  himself,  to  hold 
communion  with  him  and  with  one  another,  and  after  his  own 
illustrious  example  to  be  made  happy  by  their  own  benevolent 
activity  in  doing  good;  would  create  mind^  and  wake  up 
intelligence  round  about  his  throne,  for  the  mirrors  of  creation 
to  throw  back  the  light  of  his  glory  upon, —  hearts  to  burn 
with  love,  and  wills  to  obey,  and  energy  to  act,  with  high 
deservings  of  good  or  evil  ]  —  a  universe  so  powerful  in  intel- 
lect as  to  be  able  to  look  with  open  face  and  steadfast  vision 
upon  the  strong  light  of  his  glory,  and  so  capacious  of  heart 
as  to  be  able  to  receive  thf  tide  of  joy  which  his  benevolence 
shall  pour  through  the  soul ;  —  so  energetic  as  to  sustain  the 
strong  emotion  Avhich  his  excellence  produces,  and  to  perform 
forever  untiringly  the  glorious  work  of  benevolence  ;  —  and 
so  free  that  all  its  actions  under  the  guidance  of  law  shall  be 
its  own,  and  invested  with  all  the  attributes  of  a  perfect  ac- 
countability, which  in  all  its  consequences  of  good  or  evil 
shall  reach  through  eternity :  social,  also,  we  should  expect 
it  to  be,  holding  affectionate  communion  with  God  and  other 
minds ;  capable  of  moral  excellence,  and  all  the  fulness  of 
perfect  friendship  and  society.  Obhterate  conscious  intelli- 
gence, and  voluntariness,  and  accountability,  from  the  human 
mind,  —  disrobe  it  of  its  spontaneous  affections  and  mutual 
complacencies, —  and  you  put  down  the  race  to  the  mere  cari- 
cature of  manhood. 

There  must  exist  the  power  of  intellect,  perception,  com- 
parison, judgment,  conscience,  affections,  taste,  memory,  the 
discursive  power  of  thought,  the  power  of  volition,  and  those 
exercises  of  soul  which  constitute  personal  excellence  and 
insph-e  affection. 

It  is  only  in  the  possession  of  these  powers  that  individual 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  219 

happiness  is  enjoyed.  Convince  a  man  that  he  is  only  the 
instinctive  animal  of  a  day,  and  you  brutalize  him.  We  love 
and  are  loved,  admire  and  are  admired,  we  are  praised  or 
blamed,  on  the  ground  of  a  real  mental  energy  of  our  own, 
capable  of  such  high  and  eternal  responsibilities.  Blot  out 
the  intelh'gence  and  spontaneous  affection  of  husband  and 
wife,  of  parent. and  child,  and  the  fiimily  is  ruined  ;  the  moral 
attractions  cease,  its  sun  goes  down,  and  it  becomes  a  den  of 
animals. 

In  the  nature  of  things,  the  existence  of  a  universe  of 
mind,  of  free  agents,  of  rational,  social,  accountable  beings, 
Avould  seem  to  be  indispensable  to  the  highest  illustration  and 
expression  of  the  goodness  of  God. 

III.  God  has  actually  made  free  agents,  who  were  able,  in 
the  exercise  of  their  created  powers,  to  choose  either  way, — 
life  or  death. 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Confession  and  Catechisms. 
"Man  in  his  state  of  innoccncy  had  freedom  and  power  to 
Avill  and  to  do  that  which  is  good  and  well-pleasing  to  God ; 
but  yet  mutably,  so  that  he  might  fall  from  it." — Confess,  ch. 
IX.  sec.  2. 

"Our  first  parents,  being  left  to  the  freedom  of  their  own 
will,  fell  from  the  state  wherein  they  were  created,  by  sinning 
against  God." —  Shorter  Catechism,  p.  322. 

It  is  the  testimony  of  the  Bible,  "Lo,  this  only  have  I 
found,  that  God  made  man  upright,  but  they  have  sought  out 
many  inventions." — Ecc.  7:  29. 

It  is  a  part  of  the  recorded  history  of  the  intelligent  uni- 
verse, and  of  God's  moral  government,  that  the  angels 
kept  not  their  first  estate,  and  that  man  being  in  honor  abode 
not. 

Now,  had  Adam,  created  holy,  been  free  to  choose  obedi- 


220  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

ence  only,  and  that  by  a  natural,  constitutional,  unavoidable 
necessity,  so  that  by  the  power  of  natural  causation  his 
choice  must  be  in  accordance  with  his  character  and  constitu- 
tion of  mind,  and  the  constitution  of  things  around  him,  or  the 
active  principle  which  prevailed  in  his  nature  when  volition 
took  place ;  how  could  he  be  said  to  have  power  to  will  that 
which  is  good,  yet  mutably  so  that  he  might  fall  from  it,  and 
how  could  he  possibly  fall  ?  But  he  had  power  to  stand  and 
power  to  fall ;  and  that  is  the  essence  of  free  agency,  and  was 
the  ground  of  his  accountability. 

IV.  j^o thing  is  apparent,  in  the  nature  of  the  fall,  from 
which  to  infer  necessarily  the  destruction  of  the  constitutional 
powers  of  free  agency  in  Adam  or  his  posterity.  It  was  an 
overt  act, —  an  actual  sin.  '-'In  evil  hour  he  put  forth  the 
hand,  and  plucked  and  ate  the  fruit  forbidden."  But  does 
actual  sin  destroy  the  possibility  of  right  action  ?  It  creates 
aversion, —  it  secures  the  certainty,  under  law",  of  continuance 
in  evil,  if  unreclaimed  by  a  mediator  and  almighty  power.  But 
does  it  do  this  by  a  constitutional  necessity,  like  the  power  of 
a  natural  cause  to  its  effect  ?  If  so,  the  adulterer,  and  the 
drunkard,  and  the  liar,  would  like  to  alleviate  their  remorse, 
and  quiet  their  fearful  looking  for  of  fiery  indignation,  by  the 
consoling  information  that  the  more  they  live  after  the  flesh, 
the  deeper  the  oblivion  of  accountability,  and  crime,  and 
punishment. 

But  the  Bible  nowhere  teaches,  and  the  Confession  ex- 
pressly denies,  that  Adam  or  his  posterity  lost  their  powers 
of  agency  by  the  fall,  and  became  impotent  to  good  on  the 
ground  of  a  natural  impossibility  of  obedience. 

Did  the  change  of  character,  then,  which  the  fall  occasioned, 
preclude  the  possibility  of  subsequent  obedience  in  Adam  ? 
What  was  the  change?     It  was  the  utter  loss  of  all  holiness, 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  221 

and  the  prevalence  of  entire  depravity, —  every  imagination 
of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  became  evil,  and  only  evil,  con- 
tinually. But  does  total  depravity  render  spiritual  obedience 
a  natural  impossibility  ?  How  ?  Did  the  perfect  holiness  of 
Adam  render  sinning  impossible?  How,  then,  did  he  sin? 
Did  God  help  him?  Did  the  devil  force  him?  But,  if  per- 
fect holiness  does  not  destroy  the  possibility  of  sinning,  how 
should  perfect  sinfulness  destroy  the  possibility  of  obedience  ? 
Is  there  not  as  much  in  the  "state  of  man"  as  holy,  "in- 
cluding all  his  rational,  animal  and  moral  powers,  with  the 
active  principle  which  prevails  in  him,"  to  make  disobedience 
impossible  to  a  holy  mind,  as  in  the  same  state  of  things  in  an 
unholy  mind,  to  render  obedience  impossible  ?  But,  if  perfect 
holiness  does  not  destroy  the  natural  possibility  of  sinning, 
how  does  perfect  sinfulness  destroy  the  natural  possibility  of 
obedience?  And,  if  the  fall  did  not  destroy  the  natural 
powers  of  agency  in  Adam  which  rendered  obedience  possible, 
obligatory,  and  a  reasonable  service ;  how  should  it  destroy  in 
his  posterity  those  powers  and  responsibilities  which  it  did 
not  obliterate  in  himself?  Has  the  fall  overacted,  and  come 
down  with  greater  desolation  on  the  represented  than  on  the 
federal  head  and  representative  of  his  race  ? 

V.  That  man  possesses,  since  the  fall,  the  powers  of 
agency  requisite  to  obligation,  on  the  ground  of  the  possibility 
of  obedience,  is  a  matter  of  consciousness.  Not  one  of  the 
powers  of  mind  which  constituted  ability  before  the  Ml  have 
been  obliterated  by  that  event.  All  that  has  ever  been  con- 
ceived, or  that  can  now  be  conceived,  as  entering  into  the 
constitution  of  a  free  agent,  capable  of  choosing  life  or  death, 
or  which  did  exist  in  Adam  when  he  could  and  did  obey,  yet 
mutable,  survive  the  fliU.  The  intellect,  the  conscience,  the 
susceptibilities  of  the  soul  to  pleasure  and  pain,  and  the  heart, 

VOL.  in.  10^^ 


222  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

including  the  will  and  affections  of  the  soul, —  all  these  as 
certainly  exist,  and  as  plainly  exist,  as  the  five  senses. 

That  nothing  has  been  subtracted  by  the  fall  from  the 
powers  of  agency  requisite  to  the  possibility  of  obedience,  is 
strongly  evident  from  the  fact,  that  no  one,  by  the  most  care- 
ful analysis  of  the  mind,  has  ever  been  able  to  detect  and 
name  the  fatal  deficiency.  The  motive  to  make  such  an 
exculpatory  discovery,  and  throw  off  hated  obligation  and 
feared  punishment,  has  been  as  powerful  as  the  terrors  of 
eternity ;  and  the  effort  as  constant  as  the  flow  of  ages,  and 
urged  with  all  that  talent  and  ingenuity  and  learning  could 
apply,  and  the  wisdom  from  beneath  inspire,  to  establish  the 
excusable  im potency  of  man ;  and  to  this  day  the  effort  has 
been  abortive.  To  appearance,  the  powers  of  the  mind,  and 
the  law  of  God,  and  the  glorious  Gospel,  and  the  providence 
of  God,  are,  as  they  should  be,  to  render  obedience  a  reason- 
able service,  and  impenitence  and  unbelief  without  excuse ; 
and  where,  amid  the  constitutional  powers  of  agency,  the 
defect  lies,  has  never  been  discovered, —  what  it  is,  has  never 
been  told, —  or,  that  there  is  any  such  defect,  proved. 

VI.  Choice,  in  its  very  nature,  implies  the  possibility  of  a 
different  or  contrary  election  to  that  which  is  made.  There  is 
always  an  alternative  to  that  which  the  mind  decides  on,  with 
the  conscious  power  of  choosing  either.  In  the'  simplest  form 
of  alternative,  it  is  to  choose  or  not  to  choose  in  a  given  way ; 
but,  in  most  cases,  the  alternatives  lie  between  two  or  many 
objects  of  choice  presented  to  the  mind;  and,  if  you  deny  to 
mind  this  alternative  power. —  if  you  insist  that  by  a  constitu- 
tion anterior  to^  choice,  of  the  nature  of  a  natural  cause  pro- 
ducing its  effect,  the  choice  which  takes  place  can  come, 
and  cannot  but  come  into  being,  and  that  none  other  than  this 
can  by  any  possibility  exist,— you  have  as  perfect  a  fatality  of 


TRIAL   BEFOllE    PRESBYTERY.  223 

choice  as  ever  ragan,  or  Atheist,  or  Antinomian  conccive'l. 
The  (juestion  of  free  will  is  not  whether  man  chooses  ;  this  is 
notorious, —  none  deny  it ;  but  whether  his  choice  is  free  as 
opposed  to  a  fatal  necessity,  as  opposed  to  the  laws  of  instinct 
and  natural  causation;  whether  it  is  the  act  of  a  mind  so 
qualified  for  choice,  as  to  decide  between  alternatives,  unco- 
erced by  the  energy  of  a  natural  cause  necessitating  its  effect : 
whether  it  is  the  act  of  an  agent  who  might  have  abstained 
from  the  choice  he  made,  and  made  one  which  he  did  not. 
To  speak  of  choice  as  being  free,  which  is  produced  by  the 
laws  of  a  natural  necessity,  and  which  cannot  but  be  ichen 
and  7cJiat  it  is,  more  than  the  effects  of  natural  causes  can 
govern  the  time,  and  manner,  and  qualities  of  their  being,  is 
a  perversion  of  luYic^uage.  The  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
fathers,  and  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  and  all  the  Protestant 
Confessions  and  standard  writers,  is  not  merely  that  men  act 
by  volition  or  choice, —  the  choice  being  the  effect  of  natural 
causes,  as  really  and  entirely  as  the  falling  of  rain,  or  the 
electric  spark,  or  the  involuntary  shock  that  attends  it.  They 
meant  and  taught  that  the  will  is  high  above  the  coercion  of 
natural  causation, —  the  fatality  of  the  Stoics,  Gnostics, 
Manicheans,  or  Epicureans ;  that  it  is  the  action  of  the  mind 
of  an  intelligent  agent,  free  as  opposed  to  coercion  or  con- 
straint ;  so  that  if  the  mental  decision  is  right,  it  is  j^roperly 
associated  with  a  reward,  and  if  wrong,  with  punishment, —  an 
act  Avhich  might,  in  possibility,  have  been  refrained  from,  or 
resolved  on,  when  declined.  This  is  what  our  Confession 
teaches  and  means,  wdien  it  says  that  "  God  hath  endued  the 
will  of  man  with  that  natural  liberty  that  it  is  neither  forced, 
nor  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  determined,  to  good 
or  evil;"  and  that  God's  decrees,  which  extend  to  every 
event,  ' '  offer  no  violence  to  the  will  of  the  creature,  and  take 


224  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

not  away,  but  rather  establish  the  liberty  and  contingency  of 
second  causes;"  meaning  by  contingency,  as  Dr.  Twiss  says 
every  university  scholar  knows,  "things  which  come  to  pass 
avoidably,  and  with  a  possibility  of  not  coming  to  pass." 
This  is  tlie  language  of  our  own  Confession  in  respect  to  the 
voluntary  actions  of  men  as  contingent ;  that  is,  as  avoidable, 
and  with  a  possibility  of  not  coming  to  pass.  To  illustrate 
the  fatality  of  an  agency  in  which  choice  is  the  unavoidable 
effect  of  a  natural  constitutional  and  coercive  causation,  let  us 
suppose  an  extended  manufactory,  all  whose  wheels,  like 
those  in  Ezekiel's  vision,  are  inspired  with  intelligence,  and 
instinct  with  life,  some  crying  holy  !  holy  I  as  they  rolled, 
and  others  aloud  blaspheming  God, —  all  voluntary  in  their 
praises  and  blasphemies,  but  the  volitions,  like  the  motions  of 
the  wheels  themselves,  produced  hy  the  great  water-wheel 
and  the  various  bands  which  keep  the  motion  and  the  adora- 
tion and  the  blasphemy  a-going. —  how  much  accountabihty 
would  attach  to  these  voluntary  praises  and  blasphemies  pro- 
duced by  the  laws  of  water-power,  and  what  would  it  avail  to 
say,  as  a  reason  for  justifying  God  in  punishing  these  blas- 
phemies, 0  .'  but  they  are  free,  they  are  voluntary,  they 
choose  to  blaspheme  ?  Truly,  indeed,  they  blaspheme  volun- 
tarily,' but  their  choice  to  do  so  is  necessary  in  the  same 
sense  that  the  motion  of  the  great  wheel,  which  the  water,  by 
the  power  of  gravity,  turns,  is  necessary,  and  just  as  desti- 
tute of  accountability. 

In  this  account  of  free  agency  the  ablest  writers  concur. 
Edwards  says,  "In  every  act  of  will  whatever,  the  mind 
chooses  one  thing  rather  than  another,  the  will's  determining 
between  the  two  is  voluntary  determining ;  and  to  act  volun- 
tarily is  to  act  electively  where  things  are  chosen."  "There 
are  faculties  of  mind,"  he  says,  "and  capacity  of  nature,  and 


TBIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  225 

everything  else  sufficient  but  a  disposition.  Nothing  is  want- 
ing but  a  will."  "A  moral  agent  is  a  being  that  is  capable  of 
those  actions  that  have  a  moral  quality,  and  which  can  prop- 
erly be  denominated  good  or  evil."  Edwards  the  younger 
says,  ^'  If  by  power  be  m<;ant  natural  power,  I  grant  that  we 
have  such  a  power  to  choose,  not  only  one  of  several  things 
equally  eligible,  if  any  such  there  be,  but  one  of  things 
ever  so  unequally  eligible,  and  to  take  the  least  eligible." 
"  Liberty  or  freedom  must  mean  freedom  from  something;  if 
it  be  a  freedom  from  co;iction  or  natural  necessity,  that  is 
what  we  mean  by  freedom."  Buck,  on  the  article  ''Neces- 
sity," says,  "  Necessity  is,  whatever  is  done  by  a  cause  or 
power  that  is  irresistible,  in  which  sense  it  is  opposed  to  free- 
dom. Man  is  a  necessary  agent,  if  all  his  actions  be  so 
determined,  by  the  causes  preceding  each  action,  that  not  one 
past  action  could  possibly  not  have  come  to  pass,  or  have  been 
otherwise  than  it  hath  been,  nor  one  future  action  can  possibly 
not  come  to  pass,  or  be  otherwise  than  it  shall  be.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  asserted  that  he  is  a  free  agent,  if  he  be  able 
at  any  time,  under  the  causes  and  circumstances  he  then  is,  to 
do  different  things  ;  or,  in  other  words,  if  he  be  not  unavoid- 
ably determined  in  every  point  of  time  by  the  circumstances 
he  is  in,  and  the  causes  he  is  under,  to  do  any  one  thing  he 
does,  and  not  possibly  to  do  any  other  thing."  And  Dr. 
Woods  says,  "  The  power  of  choosing  right  or  wrong  makes 
him  [man]  a  moral  agent ;  his  actually  choosing  wrong  makes 
him  a  sinner." 

VII.  Choice,  without  the  possibility  of  other  or  contrary 
choice,  is  the  immemorial  doctrine  of  fatalism. 

I  say  not  that  all  who  assert  the  natural  inability  of  man 
are  fatalists.  I  charge  them  not  with  holding  or  admitting 
the  consequences  of  their  theory,  and  I  mean  notliing  unkind 


226  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

or  invidious  in  the  proposition  I  have  laid  down  ;  and  truth 
and  argument  are  not  invidious.  But  I  saj  that  the  theory 
of  choice  —  that  it  is  what  it  is  by  a  natural,  constitutional 
necessity,  and  that  a  man  cannot  help  choosing  what  he  does 
choose,  and  can  by  no  possibility  choose  otherAvise  —  is  the 
doctrine  of  fatalism  in  all  its  forms.  That  there  are  laws  of 
choice,  so  uniform  that  in  the  same  circumstances  the  action 
of  mind  can  be  anticipated  with  great  certainty,  is  not  denied. 
That  choice  is  in  accordance  with  the  state  of  body  and  mind, 
and  character,  and  external  circumstances,  may  be  admitted,  or 
that  it  is  as  the  greatest  apparent  good  is,  may  be  admitted ;  but 
that  is  it  so  necessarily,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  ability  of  any 
kind  to  be  other  than  it  is,  cannot  be  admitted,  without  aban- 
doning the  field  of  God's  government  of  accountable  agents, 
and  going  to  the  very  centre  of  the  region  of  fatalism.  The 
certainty  of  choice  in  given  circumstances  does  not  decide  the 
manner  of  the  certainty,  as  one  of  natural  necessity,  without 
power  to  the  contrary.  That  a  man  always,  in  the  same  cir- 
cumstances, chooses  alike,  is  no  evidence  that  he  had  no 
ability  of  any  kind  to  choose  otherwise,  and  chooses  by  a  fatal 
necessity.  Uniformity  of  choice,  in  the  same  circumstances, 
is  just  as  consistent  with  free  agency  and  natural  ability,  as 
with  necessity  and  fatalism.  But  that  choice,  without  the 
power  of  contrary  choice,  is  fatalism  in  all  its  diversified 
forms,  is  obvious  to  inspection,  and  a  matter  of  historical 
record.  The  fatality  of  the  Stoics  was  an  eternal  series  of 
cause  and  efiect,  controlling  by  inexorable  necessity  all 
events,  from  which  the  will  of  gods  and  men  was  not 
exempt.* 

*The  free  agency  advocated  by  them  was,  as  Ritter  has  plainly  shown, 
merely  exemption  in  choice  from  the  necessitating  influence  of  external 
objects,   and  not  from  an    internal  necessity  of  choice  created  by  our 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  227 

The  fatalism  of  Epicurus  was  the  atomic  theory,  the  fortu- 
itous concourse  of  atoms, —  intelligence  in  results  without  an 
intelligent  feeing,  design  without  a  designer,  and  choice,  the 
product  of  the  chance  movements  of  material  atoms. 

The  Gnostic  fatality  made  sin  an  eternal  property  of  mat- 
ter, and  the  contamination  of  mind  the  result  of  bodily  inocu- 
lation and  contact,  and  by  an  unavoidable  necessity  preclud- 
ing freedom'  of  will  as  utterly  as  the  communication  of  disease 
by  virus. 

The  Manicheans  held  with  the  Gnostics  to  the  corruption 
of  matter,  and  also  to  sin  in  the  essence  or  substance  of  the 
soul ;  both  making  sin  a  matter  of  necessity,  independent  of 
choice,  and  controlling  volition,  as  natural  causes  produce 
their  effects. 

The  fatalism  of  Spinoza  was  material  and  pantheistic, 
making  God  identical  with  the  world  and  the  only  agent,  and 
himself  subject  to  a  self-existent,  eternal  necessity  of  action, 
and  the  author  alike  of  sin  and  holiness. 

The  fatalism  of  the  French  revolutionary  atheists  was  Sad- 
ducoan  :  that  all  existence  is  material,  and  all  its  combina- 
tions and  changes  the  result  of  material  laws  in  the  form  of 
natural  cause  and  effect;  that  mind  is  matter,  that  voli- 
tion is  the  result  of  material  action;  and  that  death,  the 
.lecomposition  of  the  body,  is  an  eternal  sleep.  This  is  the 
fatalism  of  Robert  Dale  Owen  and  Fanny  "VVright. 

The  fatalism  of  Ilobbs  and  Hume  was  made  to  approximate 
a  little  more  to  the  confines  of  rationality  and  truth,  but 
not  near  enough  to  leave  necessity  behind,   and  bring  them 

natural  constitution  and  propensities,  which  are  forced  upon  us  by  a 
universal  fatality,  so  that  we  will  according  to  our  propensities,  even  as  a 
round  stone  necessarily  rolls  down  a  mountain-side  by  reason  of  its  shape 
and  weight. 


228  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

under  the  government  of  God,  as  free,  accountable  creatures. 
If  they  admitted  the  existence  of  mind  and  spirit  distinct  from 
matter  (of  which  there  is  some  doubt),  they  clothed  motives, 
as  the  antecedents  of  volition,  with  the  coercive  power  of 
material  causes  to  their  effects,  and  thus  destroyed  the  liberty 
of  the  will,  and  introduced  a  universal  coercive  necessity  of 
choice,  just  in  all  cases  as  it  is,  without  the  possibility  of  one 
more  or  less,  or  different  from  those  which  actually  come  to 
pass. 

The  necessity  of  Priestley  and  Belsham  was  material,  and 
all  volition  in  accordance  with  the  laws  and  action  of  material 
causes.  That  motives  produce  volition  necessarily,  on  the 
same  principle  that  natural  causes  produce  their  effects ;  so 
that  choice,  as  the  spontaneous  action  of  mind,  enlightened 
and  guided  and  influenced  by  law  and  motive,  has  no  exist- 
ence, but  is  in  all  cases  the  passive  effect  of  antecedent  natural 
causation,  as  inconsistent  with  accountability  and  desert  of 
punishment  as  the  sparks  that  rise  by  their  less  specific  grav- 
ity than  that  of  the  surrounding  atmosphere,  or  the  rain-drops 
that  fall  by  their  superior  gravity  to  the  sustaining  element. 

VIII.  The  supposition  of  accountabihty  for  choice,  co- 
erced by  a  natural  necessity,  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of 
things  as  God  has  constituted  them.  The  relation  of  cause 
and  effect  pervades  the  universe.  The  natural  world  is  full 
of  it.  It  is  the  basis  of  all  science,  and  of  all  intellectual 
operations  with  respect  to  mind.  Can  the  intellect  be  annihi- 
lated, and  thinking  go  on  ?  No  more  can  the  power  of  choice 
be  annihilated,  and  free  agency  go  on.  Is  there  not  a  capac- 
ity of  choice,  with  power  of  contrary  choice,  in  angels  ?  and 
was  there  not  in  Adam  before  he  fell  7  But  all  the  powers 
of  the  mind,  perception,  association,  abstraction,  memory, 
taste,  and  feehng,  conscience,  and  capacity  of  choice,  which 


TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  225 

were  required  and  did  exist  when  man  was  created  free,  are 
still  required  to  constitute  free  agency ;  and  can  it  be  that 
when  all  which  capacitated  Adam  freely  to  choose  is  demol- 
ished, that  the  Lord  still  requires  of  his  posterity  that  they, 
without  the  powers  of  their  ancestor,  should  exercise  the  per- 
fect obedience  that  was  demanded  of  him  ?  Do  the  requisi- 
tions of  law  continue  when  all  the  necessary  antecedents  to 
obedience  are  destroyed  7  Has  God  required  effects  without 
a  cause  ?  If  he  has,  then  he  has,  in  the  case  of  man,  vio- 
lated the  analogies  of  the  whole  universe ;  for  in  the  natural 
world  there  is  no  effect  without  a  cause,  nor  is  there  in  the 
intellectual  world.  How,  then,  can  it  be  that  the  same  anal- 
ogy docs  not  hold  in  the  moral  world,  where  there  exist  such 
tremendous  responsibilities  ?  What !  will  God  send  men  to 
hell  for  not  doing  impossibilities  —  for  not  producing  a  moral 
effect  without  a  cause  ? 

IX.  The  supposition  of  continued  obligation  and  respons- 
ibility, after  all  the  powers  of  causation  are  gone,  is  contrary 
to  the  common  sense  and  intuitive  perception  of  all  mankind. 
All  men  can  see  and  do  see  that  there  can  be  no  effect  without 
a  cause.  They  are  so  constituted  that  they  cannot  help 
seeing  and  feeling  this.  That  nothing  cannot  produce  some- 
thing, is  an  intuitive  perception,  the  basis  of  that  illustrious 
demonstration  by  which  we  prove  the  being  of  a  God.  For, 
if  one  thing  may  exist  without  a  cause,  all  things  may ;  and 
we  are  yet  to  get  hold  of  the  first  strand  of  an  argument  to 
prove  the  existence  of  a  God.  All  men  see  that  to  require 
right  volition  without  a  competent  cause  of  choice  in  mind, 
would  be  to  require  an  effect  without  a  cause.  What  is  the 
foundation  of  accountability  1  It  is  the  possession  of  some- 
thing to  be  accounted  for.  But,  if  a  man  does  not  possess  the 
capacity  of  choice  with  power  to  the  contrary,  what  has  he 

VOL.  III.  20 


230  VIEWS   OP  THEOLOGY. 

got  to  be  accountable  for  ?  He  sees  and  feels  that  he  is  not 
to  blame ;  and  you  cannot  with  more  infallible  certainty  make 
men  believe,  and  fix  them  in  the  belief,  that  they  are  not 
responsible,  than  to  teach  them  that  they  have  not  the  power 
of  choosing,  only  as  they  do  actually  choose.  It  is  the  way 
to  make  a  man  a  fatalist.  But  you  cannot  do  it.  God  has 
put  that  in  the  breast  of  man  which  cannot  be  reasoned  away. 
Every  man  knows  and  feels  that  he  has  power  and  is  respons- 
ible. Men  never  associate  blame  with  the  qualities  of  will 
or  action,  on  the  supposition  of  a  natural  impossibility  that 
they  should  be  otherwise,  but  always  on  the  supposition 
that  they  were  able  to  have  chosen  or  acted  otherwise.  What 
would  be  the  education  of  a  family,  on  this  principle  ?  There 
is  not  a  child  five  years  old  but  understands  this.  He  breaks 
a  plate  or  spoils  a  piece  of  furniture,  and,  when  he  appre- 
hends punishment,  he  pleads,  with  confidence,  that  he  did  not 
mean  to  do  it.  His  language  is,  '"I  couldn't  help  it,"  and 
on  that  plea  he  rests.  The  child  understands  it :  and  the 
parent  understands  it ;  and  all  human  laws  are  built  upon  it. 
Why  is  not  an  idiot  punished  when  he  commits  a  crime '? 
For  the  lack  of  that  natural  ability  which  alone  makes  him 
responsible.  Why  are  not  lunatics  treated  as  subjects  of 
law  ?  Because  their  reason  has  been  so  injured  as  to  destroy 
free  agency,  and  with  it  to  put  an  end  to  their  accountability. 
Look  at  the  government  of  a  family.  If  one  child  is  an  idiot, 
the  parent  does  not  treat  that  child  as  he  does  the  rest.  He 
feels  and  admits  that  the  poor  idiot  is  not  responsible  for  its 
acts ;  and  the  same  principle  holds  in  the  case  of  monomania, 
where  the  mind  is  deranged  in  one  particular  respect.  I  was 
myself  acquainted  with  a  case  of  this  sort ;  an  individual  in 
whom  all  the  powers  were  perfect,  save  that  the  power  of 
association  was  wanting, —  that  faculty  by  which  one  thought 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  231 

draws  on  another, —  and  she  was  a  perfect  curiosity.  She 
would  commence  talking  on  one  subject,  and  before  the  sen- 
tence was  complete  she  would  commence  on  another,  which  had 
not  the  remotest  connection  with  it,  and  in  an  instant  pass  to  a 
third,  which  was  foreign  from  both ;  and  thus  she  would  hop, 
skip  and  jump,  over  all  the  world, —  there  was  no  concatena- 
tion of  thought.  Now,  suppose  this  woman  had  been  required 
to  deliver  a  Four th-of- July  oration,  admitting  that  she  pos- 
sessed all  the  knowledge  and  talent  in  other  respects  neces- 
sary to  such  a  task ;  —  on  her  failing  to  do  it,  is  she  to  be 
taken  to  the  whipping-post,  and  lacerated  for  that  which  she 
wanted  the  natural  ability  to  do  ?  The  magistrate  who  would 
award  such  a  sentence  would  at  once  become  infamous  ;  and 
shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right  ?  Will  the  glo- 
rious and  righteous  Jehovah  reap  where  he  has  not  sown, 
and  gather  where  he  has  not  strewed  ?  Will  he  require  obe- 
dience where  all  power  to  obey  is  gone?  Men  do  not 
require  that,  when  even  one  faculty  is  gone ;  and  will  God, 
when  all  are  gone,  come  and  take  his  creature  by  the  throat 
and  say  to  him,  Pay  that  thou  owest  ?  That  was  the  libel 
which  the  slothful  servant  brought  against  his  Lord :  "I 
knew  thee  that  thou  wast  a  hard  master,  reaping  where  thou 
hast  not  sown,  and  gathering  where  thou  hast  not  strown, 
and  I  was  afraid."  Who  would  not  be  afraid,  under  such  a 
ruler?  Who  could  tell  what  would  come  next?  God  re- 
quires according  to  that  which  a  man  hath,  and  not  according 
to  that  which  he  hath  not.  Were  it  otherwise,  who  could 
tell  what  wantonness  and  what  oppression  might  not  proceeed 
from  heaven's  high  throne  ? 

X.  It  is  a  matter  of  universal  consciousness,  that  men  are 
free  to  choose  right  or  wrong,  life  or  death. 

Of  nothing  are  men  more  thoroughly  informed,  or  more 


232  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

competent  to  judge  unerringly,  than  in  respect  to  their  mode 
of  action,  whether  it  is  coerced  or  free. 

Testimony  may  mislead,  and  the  senses  by  disease  may 
deceive ;  but  consciousness  is  the  end  of  controversy ;  its 
evidence  cannoi  be  increased,  and,  if  it  be  distrusted,  there  is 
no  alternative  but  universal  scepticism.  Our  consciousness 
of  the  mode  of  mental  action  in  choice,  as  uncoerced  and  free, 
equals  our  consciousness  of  existence  itself ;  and  the  man  who 
doubts  either  gives  indications  of  needing  medical  treatment, 
instead  of  argument.  When  a  man  does  wrong,  and  then 
reflects  upon  the  act,  he  feels  that  he  might  have  abstained ; 
and  so  when  he  looks  forward  to  a  future  action.  When,  for 
example,  he  deliberates  whether  he  shall  commit  a  theft,  he 
listens  to  the  pleading  of  cowardice  or  conscience  on  the  one 
side,  and  of  covetousness  and  laziness  on  the  other.  All  these 
things  come  up  and  are  looked  at,  and,  after  considering  them, 
he  at  length  screws  up  his  mind  to  the  point,  and  does  the 
deed ;  and  when  he  has  done  it,  does  he  not  know,  does  he 
not  feel,  that  he  could  have  chosen  the  other  way  ?  If  not, 
why  did  he  balance  when  he  was  considering  ?  Did  he  not 
know  that  he  had  power  to  act  and  power  to  leave  it  undone  ? 
And  when  it  is  past  recall,  is  he  not  conscious  that  he  need 
not  have  done  it  ?  And  does  he  not  say,  iii  his  remorse,  ' '  I 
am  sorry  that  I  did  it "  7  I  say,  therefore,  it  is  a  matter  of 
common  consciousness  to  all  mankind,  that  they  act  unco- 
erced, and  with  the  power  of  acting  otherwise.  Give  a  child 
an  apple  and  an  orange ;  after  he  has  eaten  the  orange,  he 
will  wish  he  had  it  back  again,  and  he  will  say,  "  I  wish  I  had 
eaten  the  apple  and  kept  the  orange."  But  why,  if  he  did  not 
feel  that  at  the  time  he  had  the  power  to  keep  the  orange 
and  eat  the  apple?  Yes,  men  have  the  power;  and  the 
consciousness  that  they  have  it  will  go  with  them  through 


TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  233 

eternity.  Wliat  says  God,  -when  lie  warns  the  sinner  of  tlic 
consequences  of  his  evil  choice'?  "  Lest  thou  mourn  at  the 
last,  when  thy  flesh  and  thy  body  are  consumed,  and  say, 
How  have  I  hated  instruction  and  my  heart  despised  reproof, 
and  have  not  obeyed  the  voice  of  my  teacher,  nor  inclined 
mine  ear  to  them  that  instruct  me."  Incurable  regret  will 
arise  from  the  perfect  consciousness  that  when  he  did  evil  he 
might  have  done  right.  This  is  the  worm  that  never  dies, 
tlic  fire  that  will  never  be  quenched.  And  because  this 
consciousness  is  in  men,  you  never  can  reason  them  out  of  a 
sense  of  accountability.  Many  have  tried  it,  but  none  have 
for  any  length  of  time  succeeded ;  and  the  reason  is  plain, — • 
there  is  nothing  which  the  mind  is  more  conscious  of  than  the 
fact  of  its  own  voluntary  action,  with  the  power  of  acting 
right  or  wrong;  the  mind  sees  and  knows  and  regrets 
when  it  has  done  wrong.  Take  away  this  consciousness,  and 
there  is  no  remorse.  You  cannot  produce  remorse  as  long  as 
a  man  feels  that  his  act  was  not  his  own, —  that  it  was  not 
voluntary,  but  the  effect  of  compulsion.  He  may  dread  the 
consequences,  but  you  never  can  make  him  feel  remorse  for 
the  act  on  its  own  account.  This  is  the  reason  why  men  who 
have  reasoned  away  the  existence  of  God,  and  argued  that  to 
require  right  volition  without  a  competent  cause  in  mind  is 
to  require  an  effect  without  a  cause,  to  prove  that  the  soul  is 
noriiing  but  matter,  know,  as  soon  as  they  reflect,  that  all 
their  reasoning  is  false.  There  is  a  lamp  within,  which  they 
cannot  extinguish ;  and,  after  all  their  metaphysics,  they  are 
conscious  that  they  act  freely,  and  that  there  is  a  God  to 
whom  they  are  accountable  ;  and,  hence  it  is  that  when  they 
cross  the  ocean,  and  a  storm  comes  on,  and  they  expect  to 
go  to  the  bottom,  they  begin  straightway  to  pray  to  God  and 
confess  their  sins. 
VOL.  III.  20* 


234  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

The  natural  impossibility  of  choosing  otherwise  than 
we  do  choose  is  contrary,  then,  not  only  to  the  common 
sense  and  intuitive  perceptions  of  men,  but  contrary  to  their 
internal  consciousness.  There  is  a  deep  and  universal  con- 
sciousness in  all  men  as  to  the  freedom  of  choice ;  and,  in 
denying  this,  you  reverse  God's  constitution  of  man.  You 
assume  that  God  gave  a  deceptive  constitution  to  mind,  or  a 
decent.!  ■  ..  consciousness.  Now,  I  think  that  God  is  as  honest 
in  the  moral  world  as  he  is  in  the  natural  world.  I  believe 
that  in  our  consciousness  he  tells  the  truth ;  and  that  the 
natural  constitution  and  universal  feelings  and  perceptions 
of  men  are  the  voice  of  God  speaking  the  truth ;  and  if  the 
truth  is  not  here,  where  may  we  expect  to  find  it  ? 

It  has  been  insisted  by  some  that  in  looking  for  the 
ground  of  accountability  men  never  go  beyond  the  fact 
itself  of  voluntariness ;  if  the  deed,  whether  good  or  evil,  be 
voluntary,  that  satisfies.  It  does ;  but  it  is  because  all  men 
include,  unfailingly,  both  in  their  theory  and  consciousness, 
the  supposition  of  powers  of  agency  unhindered  and  unco- 
erced by  any  fatal  necessity.  But,  convince  them  that 
choice  is  an  effect  over  which  mind  has  no  more  control  than 
over  the  drops  of  rain,  and  the  common  sense  of  the  world 
would  revolt  against  the  accountability  of  choice  merely 
because  it  was  choice.  There  is,  therefore,  a  universal  prac- 
tical profession  of  man's  free  agency,  as  including  the  capacity 
of  choice,  uncoerced  and  free.  All  men  claim  a  desert  of 
reward  for  well-doing,  and  complain  of  ingratitude  and  injus- 
tice when  it  is  denied.  They  admit  and  insist  that  those  who 
injure  them  in  person,  good  name,  or  substance,  deserve 
punishment.  They  admit  that  laws  and  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments are  necessary  to  the  government  of  men,  and  just 
when  administered  accordino^  to  their  deeds.     Even  atheists 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  235 

and  fatalists  can  rail  against  superstition  and  priestcraft,  and 
bigotry  and  persecution,  as  deserving  execration  and  punish- 
ment ;  an  evidence  that  when  consciousness  and  common  sense 
prevail,  their  sceptical  theory  is  a  dead  letter.  A  nation  of 
atheists  were  constrained,  in  words  and  deeds,  to  falsify  their 
philosophy  ;  and  in  the  family  and  in  the  government  to  talk 
and  act  as  if  men  were  free  agents,  and  accountable  for  their 
deeds. 

XL  Beside  all  the  preceding,  we  add  that  all  attempts 
to  govern  man,  and  form  his  character  and  elevate  his  condi- 
tion, upon  any  other  supposition  than  his  spontaneous  agency, 
pervert  his  nature,  and  debase  society.  Just  in  proportion  as 
mental  culture  is  superseded  by  force,  he  sinks  in  the  scale 
of  being,  till  he  becomes  a  stupid  or  a  ferocious  animal.  Treat 
men  as  if  they  were  dogs,  and  soon  they  will  act  like  dogs. 
But,  the  moment  you  treat  them  as  free  moral  agents,  and 
responsible  for  their  actions,  that  moment  you  begin  to  ele- 
vate them.  Treat  a  child  with  affection,  repose  confidence  in 
him,  and  address  his  reason, —  he  feels  that  he  is  raised,  and 
he  acts  accordingly;  and  just  as  you  depart  from  this  course 
you  become  unable  to  manage  your  child.  He  gets  out  of 
your  hands, —  he  gets  above  you  ;  for,  as  respects  his  relation 
to  you,  he  is  indomitable.  The  will  of  man  is  stronger  than 
anything  in  the  universe,  except  the  Almighty  God ;  and,  if 
you  disregard  this  truth,  you  ruin  your  child. 

XII.  God  requires  of  his  subjects  only  conformity  to 
himself,  to  his  own  moral  excellence,  but  he  admits  of  no 
obligation  on  himself  to  work  impossibilities  ;  and  docs  he 
impose  obligations  on  liis  subjects  which  he  himself  refuses 
to  assume '?  He  does  not  regard  it  as  an  excellence  in  him- 
self to  work  impossibilities  ;  does  he  command  it  as  a  virtue 
in  his  subjects  ? 


236  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

He  has  no  desire  to  work  impossibilities  himself;  ■why- 
should  he  desire  it  in  his  creatures  ?  He  has  never  tried^ 
and  never  will  try^  to  work  an  impossibility :  and  why  should 
he  command  his  creatures  to  do  what  he  himself  neither 
desires  nor  tries  to  accomphsh  ?  He  cannot  work  impossi- 
bilities :  and  how  can  it  be  thought  that  he  will  require  of 
his  creatures  that  which  he  himself  cannot  do  7 

The  original  powers  of  free  agency  and  accountability 
bestowed  on  man,  in  innocency,  decide  that  power  to  choose, 
with  a  power  of  choice  to  the  contrary,  is  an  essential  constit- 
uent of  accountability,  in  all  his  posterity.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  God  is  able  to  make  a  free  aojent, — to  brino;  a  mind 
into  being  -which  is  capable  of  doing 'right  or  wrong,  under  a 
perfect  law.  There  are  two  orders  of  intellectual  beings  with 
which  we  are  acquainted,  angels  and  men.  With  respect  to 
Adam  in  innocency,  we  know,  certainly,  that  God  laid  the 
foundation  of  his  accountability  in  a  free  agency,  which 
included  both  the  ability  of  standing  and  the  ability  of  falling. 
Before  either  Adam  or  the  angels  acted  at  all,  they  had  a 
capacity  to  respond  to  the  divine  requirements ;  and  it  was 
indispensable  to  their  moral  action  that  they  should.  But,  if 
this  was  necessary  to  begin  moral  accountability,  why  is  it 
not  equally  necessary  to  continue  it  7  Did  God  give  to  man 
more  than  he  needed  ?  Surely  not.  God  has  told  us  what 
he  did.  There  is  no  metaphysics  about  it.  He  conferred 
upon  him  no  one  item  of  power  which  he  afterwards  took 
away.  The  Confession  says  so ;  and  the  perceptions  of  all 
mankind,  and  the  analogy  of  God's  government,  both  in  the 
natural  world  and  moral  world,  and  the  intuitive  knowledge 
which  we  all  possess  of  the  connection  of  cause  and  effect,  and 
of  the  foundation  of  moral  obligation,  all  go  to  establish  and 
confirm  the  truth. 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  237 

My  argument  is,  that  free  agency  and  obligation  were  com- 
menced in  the  possession  of  natural  ability  commensurate 
■with  all  that  God  required ;  and  that  Avhat  was  necessary  to 
begin  them  is  equally  necessary  to  continue  them,  and  always 
will  be  equally  necessary.  I  know  that  it  is  said  that  the  devil 
has  fallen  into  a  state  of  natural  inability.  But  to  this  I  can't 
agree.  I  have  no  doubt  the  devil  would  be  glad  to  think  so. 
It  would  relieve  his  deep  and  insupportable  anguish,  if  he 
could  believe  that  he  had  never  sinned  but  once,  and  that  ever 
since  that  he  has  been  a  poor,  helpless  creature.  No  !  he  has 
sinned  since  his  fall,  and  will  sin  again.  He  does  possess  free 
agency,  and  he  can't  run  away  from  it.  It  is  a  necessary 
attribute  of  his  being,  and  so  it  is  of  ours.  God  will  live, 
and  his  law  will  live,  and  the  curses  of  his  law  will  live  ;  and 
that  is  the  reason  why  the  punishment  of  the  next  world  is 
eternal.  Stripes  continue  to  follow  upon  the  footsteps  of 
transgression  to  all  eternity. 

I  say  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  fall  to  destroy  man's 
free  agency.  The  fall  in  Adam  was  occasioned  by  a  single 
actual  sin  ;  but  does  actual  sin  destroy  free  agency  ?  If  so, 
drunkards  and  all  liars  will  be  glad  to  know  it.  The  more 
liquor  they  drink,  and  the  more  lies  they  tell,  the  less  will  be 
their  accountability.  No,  the  fall  did  not  destroy  free  agency 
or  accountability.  It  did  create  a  powerful  bias,  so  that  there 
was  an  inevitable  certainty  that  man  would  go  wrong.  But 
it  did  not  destroy  his  capacity  of  going  right.  Look  at  the 
consequence  that  would  follow.  If  sin  destroys  free  agency, 
then  the  man  who  tells  the  truth  is  under  obligation  to  speak 
truth,  but  he  who  tells  lies  is  not  under  obligation.  Sinning 
does  not  destroy  the  power  of  obedience  any  more  in  men  than 
it  did  in  Adam.  It  destroyed  it  in  neither ;  and,  therefore, 
although  man   fell,  the   law   marched   on   unimpaired,   un- 


238  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

changed,  and  therefore  it  was  that  Christ  came  to  save  not 
machines,  but  perverted  free  agents. 

All  such  constitutional  powers  as  were  requisite  or  can 
be  conceived  necessary  for  man's  accountability  do  still 
remain.  The  natural  power  of  man  is  a  matter  of  inspection 
and  consciousness.  We  see  it  in  others  ;  we  feel  it  in  our- 
selves. We  have  still  perception,  reason,  conscience,  associ- 
ation, abstraction,  memory.  All  these  were  possessed  by 
man  when  he  was  constituted  a  free  agent,  and  they  all  do 
now  in  fact  exist.  So  far  as  our  natural  and  constitutional 
powers  are  concerned,  there  is  no  difference  betwixt  us  and 
Adam.  The  difference  lies  in  this,  that  Adam,  while  in  a 
state  of  innocency.  put  forth  these  powers  in  a  right  direction, 
while  we  all  exert  them  perversely,  although  by  the  sponta- 
neous energy  of  the  mind.  Therefore,  the  fact  that  man  is  a 
free  agent  is  as  much  a  matter  of  notoriety,  and  as  generally 
known  and  understood,  as  the  qualities  of  the  inferior  animals ; 
as  that  a  lion  is  a  lion,  or  a  lamb  is  a  lamb.  It  is  just  as 
plain  that  we  have  the  faculties  necessary  to  free  action  as 
that  we  have  five  senses.  These  were  all  that  were  ever  put 
into  Adam.  We  have  just  as  many  as  he  had,  neither  more 
nor  less;  and,  if  you  take  away  any  one  of  them,  you  do  to  that 
extent  take  away  the  responsibility  of  the  individual ;  at  least, 
such  is  the  doctrine  in  all  human  courts  of  justice,  though 
some  would  persuade  us  it  is  otherwise  in  the  righteous  court 
of  Heaven. 

I  have  now  finished  the  argument  in  confirmation  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  so  far  as  the  confirmation 
is  derived  from  the  nature  of  things. 

The  interpretation  given  by  Dr.  Wilson  goes  up  stream. 
It  is  against  the  whole  constitution  of  the  universe.  It  is 
contrary  to  the  common  sense  and  intuitive  perceptions  of 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  239 

man.  There  is  a  deep  and  a  universal  consciousness  in  all 
men  as  to  the  freedom  of  choice,  and  in  denying  this  you 
reverse  God's  constitution  of  man.  You  assume  that  God 
gave  a  deceptive  constitution  to  mind,  or  a  deceptive  con- 
sciousness. Now,  I  think  that  God  is  as  honest  in  his  moral 
world  as  he  is  in  the  natural  world.  I  believe  that  in  our 
consciousness  he  tells  the  truth ;  and  that  the  natural  constitu- 
tion, universal  feelings  and  perceptions  of  men,  are  the  voice 
of  God  speaking  the  truth ;  and,  if  the  truth  is  not  here, 
where  may  we  expect  to  find  it  ? 

My  next  argument  is  to  show  that,  in  view  of  such  reason- 
ing, the  whole  Church  of  God  has  set  her  seal  to  this  doc- 
trine ;  and  that  what  has  been  termed  a  slander  upon  her  fair 
fmie,  so  far  from  being  a  slander,  will  turn  out  to  be  a 
glorious  truth ;  and  that  the  demonstration  of  it  will  have 
wiped  oflf  from  her  fame  a  foul  stigma,  which  was  cast  upon 
it  by  a  misinterpretation  of  her  standards. 

I  affirm,  then,  in  support  of  my  exposition  of  the  Confes- 
sion, that  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Church,  from  the  primi- 
tive age  down  to  this  day,  is,  that  man  is  a  free  agent,  in 
possession  of  such  natural  poAvers  as  are  adequate  to  a  com- 
pliance with  every  requirement  of  God. 

But  Dr.  Wilson  has  said,  AVhat  are  the  opinions  of  these 
writers  to  us  ?  What  have  wc  to  do  with  them  ?  I  answer 
that  the  opinions  of  great  and  good  men  in  the  Church, 
shoAving  how  the  Church  from  generation  to  generation  has 
understood  the  Bible,  is  a  light  in  which  both  he  and  I  have 
reason  to  rejoice.  And,  if  I  shall  bring  the  united  testimony 
of  the  talent,  learning  and  piety,  of  the  Church,  in  support  of 
my  exposition,  I  am  wilhng  to  run  the  risk  of  going  to 
Synod.  I  shall,  therefore,  submit  to  the  Presbytery  a  series 
of  quotations  from  the  fathers,  as  I  find  them  collected  by 


24:0  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

Dr.  Scott,  in  his  remarks  upon  Tomline.  I  take  his  quota- 
tions as  correct,  not  having  the  originals  in  my  possession,  by 
which  to  verify  them.  I  presume  Dr.  Wilson  will  admit 
their  authenticity. 

It  is,  however,  to  be  remembered,  and  noted  carefully  in 
reading  this  testimony  of  the  fathers,  that  by  ^'' free  wilV 
they  mean  a  will  free  as  opposed  to  the  coercion  of  fate ;  the 
supposed  necessity  of  a  series  of  natural  causes,  by  which  the 
wills  of  God  and  man  were  controlled.  The  question  whether 
the  will  is  free  in  a  moral  sense,  as  prone  to  evil  since  the 
fall,  or  impartial  and  unbiased,  had  not  then  come  up  in  the 
Church.  The  moral  bias  to  evil  was  admitted, —  taken  for 
granted, —  and  not  publicly  controverted  till  the  time  of  Pela- 
gius.  Their  doctrine  of  free  will,  therefore,  is  not  the 
Pelagian  or  Arminian  doctrine,  but  the  anti-fatalism  doctrine 
of  mind  free  as  uncoerced  in  choice,  and  with  the  power 
always  of  contrary  choice, —  that  is,  the  equal  power  of  choos- 
ing good  or  evil,  life  or  death, —  and  in  this  view  I  begin  with 
Justin  Martyr,  A.  D.  140. 

But   lest  any  one  should    imagine  that  I  am  asserting  that   things 

happen  by  a  necessity  of  fate,  because  I  have  said  that  things  are  fore- 
st 
known,  I  proceed  to  refute  that  opinion  also.     That  punishments  and 

chastisements  and  good  rewards  are  given  according  to  the  worth  of  the 

action  of  every  one,  having  learnt  it  from  the  prophets,  we  declare  to  be 

true  ;  since  if  it  were  not  so,  but  all  things  to  happen  according  to  fate, 

nothing  would  be  in  our  power  ;  for,  if  it  were  decreed  by  fate  that  one 

should  be  good  and  another  bad,  no  praise  would  be  due  to  the  former,  or 

blame  to  the  latter.     And  again,  if  mankind  had  not  the  power  by  free 

will  to  avoid  what  is  disgraceful,  and  to  choose  what  is  good,  they  would 

not  be  responsible  for  their  actions.  — p.  13. 

Because  God  from  the  beginning  endowed  angels  and  men  with  free 

will,  they  justly  receive  punishment  of  their  sins  in  everlasting  fire.     For 

it  is  the  nature  of  every  one  who  is  born  to  be  capable  of  virtue  and  vice  ; 

for  nothing  would  deserve  praise,  if  it  has  not  the  power  of  tiu-ning  itself 

away.  —  p.  25. 


TllIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  241 

This  language  of  Justin  is  as  plain  as  it  can  be.  That  to 
free  agency  and  accountability  tlie  natural  ability  of  choice^ 
toilli  power  to  the  contrary^  is  indispensable. 

Tatian,  a.  D.  172.  —  Free  Tvill  destroyed  us.  Being  free,  we  became 
slaves;  we  were  so/r/,  because  of  sin.  No  evil  proceeds  from  God.  We 
luive  i)roduoed  wickedness  ;  but  those  who  have  produced  it  have  it  in 
their  power  again  to  remove  it. — p.  31  [that  is,  the  natural  power  of 
choosing  hfe  or  death]. 

iRENiEus,  A.  D.  178.  — But  man  being  endowed  with  reason,  and  in  this 
respect  like  to  God,  —  being  nuide  free  in  his  will,  and  having  power  over 
hiiiisclt',  —  is  the  cause  that  sometimes  he  becomes  wheat  and  sometimes 
chaflF.  Wherefore  he  wi'l  also  be  justly  condemned  ;  because,  being  made 
rational,  he  lost  trae  reason  :  and  living  irrationally,  he  opposed  the  jus- 
tice of  God,  delivering  himself  up  to  every  earthly  spirit,  and  serving  all 

lusts. p.   ?'0. 

But  if  srme  men  were  bad  by  nature  (that  is,  by  a  natural  necessity) 
and  otlicrs  good,  neither  the  good  would  deserve  praise,  for  they  were  cre- 
ated so,  nor  would  the  bad  deserve  blame,  being  born  so.  But,  since  all 
picn  arc  of  the  same  nature,  and  able  to  lay  hold  of  and  do  that  which  is  good, 
and  able  to  reject  it  again  and  not  do  it,  some  justly  receive  praise,  even 
from  men,  who  act  according  to  good  laws,  and  some  much  more  from 
God  ;  and  obtain  deserved  testimony  of  generally  choosing  and  persevering 
in  that  which  is  good  ;  but  others  are  blamed,  and  receive  the  deserved 
reproach  of  rejecting  that  which  is  just  and  good.  And  therefore  the 
prophets  enjoined  men  to  do  justice  and  perform  good  works.  —  p.  42. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  194.  —  Neither  praise  nor  dispraise,  nor 
honors  nor  punishments,  would  be  just,  if  the  soul  had  not  the  power  of 
desiring  and  rejecting,  if  vice  were  involuntary.  — p.  54. 

As,  therefore,  he  is  to  be  commended  who  uses  his  power  in  leading  a 
virtuous  life ;  so  much  more  is  he  to  be  venerated  and  adored  who  has 
given  us  this  free  and  sovereign  power,  and  has  permitted  us  to  live,  not 
having  allowed  what  we  choose  or  what  we  avoid  to  be  subject  to  a  slavish 
nccci-sity.  —  p.  54. 

Tertulliax,  a.  D.  200.  — I  find  that  man  was  formed  by  God  with  free 
will  and  with  power  over  himself,  observing  in  him  no  image  or  likeness  to 
God  more  than  in  this  respect  ;  for  he  was  not  formed  after  God,  who  is 
uniform  in  face,  bodily  lines,  &,c.,  which  are  so  various  in  mankind,  but  in 
that  substance  which  he  derived  from  God  himself ;  that  is,  the  soul, 
VOL.    III.  21 


242  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

answering  to  the  form  of  God  ;  and  he  was  stamped  with  the  freedom  of 
his  will.  , 

The  law  itself,  which  was  then  imposed  by  God,  confirmed  this  condition 
of  man.  For  a  law  would  not  have  been  imposed  on  a  person  who  had  not 
in  his  jaower  the  obedience  due  to  the  law;  nor,  again,  would  transgres- 
sion have  been  threatened  with  death,  if  the  contempt  also  of  the  law  were 
not  placed  to  the  account  of  man'' s free  will. 

He  who  should  be  found  to  be  good  or  bad  by  necessity,  and  not  volun- 
tarily, could  not  with  justice  receive  the  retribution  either  of  good  or  evil. 
—  p.  64. 

This  demands  no  comment. 

Origen,  a.  D.  220.  — Whence,  consequently,  we  may  understand,  that 
we  are  not  subject  to  necessity  so  as  to  be  compelled  by  all  means  to  do 
either  bad  or  good  things,  although  it  be  against  our  will.  For  if  we  be 
masters  of  one  will,  some  powers,  perhaps,  may  urge  us  to  sin,  and  others 
assist  us  to  safety  ;  yet  we  are  not  compelled  by  necessity  to*  act  either 
rightly  or  wrongly. 

According  to  us,  there  is  nothing  in  any  rational  creature  which  is  not 
capable  of  good  as  well  as  evil.  There  is  no  nature  that  does  not  admit  of 
good  and  evil,  except  that  of  God,  which  is  the  foundation  of  all  good.  — 
p.  66. 

We  have  frequently  shown,  in  all  our  disputations,  that  the  nature  of 
rational  souls  is  such  as  to  be  capable  of  good  and  evil.  Every  one  has  the 
power  of  choosing  good  and  choosing  evil.  — p.  67. 

A  thing  does  not  happen  because  it  was  foreknown  ;  but  it  was  fore- 
known because  it  would  happen.  Tliis  distinction  is  necessary.  For  if 
any  one  so  interprets  what  was  to  happen  as  to  make  what  was  foreknown 
necessary,  we  do  not  agree  with  him  ;  for  we  do  not  say  that  it  was  neces- 
sary for  Judas  to  be  a  traitor,  although  it  was  foreknown  that  Judas  would 
be  a  traitor.  For  in  the  prophecies  concerning  Judas  there  are  complaints 
and  accusations  against  him,  jDublicly  proclaiming  the  circumstance  of  his 
blame ;  but  he  would  be  free  from  blame,  if  he  had  been  a  traitor  from 
necessity,  and  if  it  had  been  impossible  for  him  to  be  like  the  other  apos- 
tles.—pp.  80,  81. 

Cyprian,  A.  D.  248.  —  Yet  did  he  not  reprove  those  who  left  him  or 
threaten  them  severely,  but  rather,  turnuig  to  the  apostles,  said,  "  Will  ye 
also  go  away  ?  "  preserving  the  law,  by  which  man,  being  left  to  his  own 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  243 

liberty,  and  endowed  with  free  will,  seeks  for  himself  ^Zea^/i  or  salvation. 
—  p.  84. 

Lactantius,  a.  D.  30G. — That  man  ha,^  n  free  will  [that  is,  able  to 
choose  either  way]  to  believe  or  not  to  believe,  see  in  Deuteronomy,  "I 
have  set  l)efore  you  life  and  death,  blessing  and  cursing  ;  therefore  choose 
life,  that  both  thou  and  thy  seed  may  live."  — p.  88. 

EusEBius,  A.  D.  315.  The  fault  is  in  him  who  chooses,  and  not  in  God. 
For  God  has  not  made  nature  or  the  substance  of  the  soul  bad ;  for  he  whor 
is  good  can  make  nothing  but  what  is  good.  Everything  is  good  which  is 
according  to  nature  (that  is,  as  God  made  it).  Every  rational  soul  has 
naturally  a  good  free  will  formed  fbr  the  choice  of  what  is  good.  But 
when  a  man  acts  wrongly,  nature  is  not  to  be  blamed  ;  for  what  is  wrong 
takes  place  not  according  to  nature,  but  contrary  to  nature,  it  being  the 
work  of  choice,  and  not  of  nature.  For  when  a  person  who  had  the  power 
of  choosing  what  was  good  did  not  choose  it,  but  voluntarily  turned  away 
from  what  is  best,  pursuing  what  was  worst,  what  room  for  escape  could 
be  left  him,  who  is  become  the  cause  of  his  own  internal  disease,  having 
neglected  the  innate  law,  as  it  were,  his  saviour  and  physician  ?  —  p.  91. 

In  all  these  quotations,  I  repeat,  the  words  of  these  fathers 
must  be  expounded  with  regard  to  the  object  at  which  their 
writino's  were  directed.  Let  it  not  be  foro;otteh  that  the 
first  heresy  which  vexed  the  Church  after  the  days  of  the 
apostles  was  the  pagan  notion  of  fite,  or  such  a  necessary 
concatenation  of  cause  and  effect  as  was  above  the  will 
both  of  gods  and  men, —  the  very  gods  themselves  had  no 
power  to  resist  it.  The  same  notion  was  involved  in  the 
heresy  of  the  Gnostics,  who  held  that  all  sin  lay  in  matter, 
and  that  man  was  a  sinner  from  necessity ;  and  of  the  Mani- 
cheans,  who  held  that  all  sin  was  in  the  created  substance  of 
the  mind.  Now,  in  resisting  these  heretics,  these  fathers 
maintained  with  zeal  the  doctrine  of  free  will, —  meaning 
thereby,  not  an  unbiased  will,  but  a  will  free  from  the  neces- 
sity of  fate ;  for  the  philosophers,  and  the  Gnostics,  and  the 
Manicheans,  all  hold  the  doctrine  of  man's  natural  inability. 


244  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

The  philosophers  derived  it  from  fate ;  the  Gnostics,  from  the 
corruption  of  matter  ;  the  Manicheans,  from  the  constitution 
and  nature  of  the  soul.  This  was  the  first  great  attack  upon 
the  truth  on  which  these  venerable  men  were  called  to  fix 
their  sanctified  vision,  and  it  was  against  these  several  ver- 
sions of  error  that  they  bore  their  testimony  in  favor  of  free 
will. 

Ctbil  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  348. — The  soul  has  free  mil:  the  devil, 
indeed,  may  suggest,  but  he  has  not  also  the  power  to  compel  contrary  to 
the  will.  He  suggests  the  thought  of  fornication,  —  if  you  be  willing,  you 
accept  it;  if  unwilling,  you  reject  it  ;  for  if  you  committed  fornication  by 
necessity,  why  did  God  prepare  a  hell  ?  If  you  acted  justly  by  ?iature 
[that  is,  necessity],  and  not  according  to  your  own  free  choice,  why  did 
God  prepare  unutterable  rewards  ?  —  p.  103. 

HiLAKT,  A.  D.  304.  —  The  excuse  of  a  certain  natural  necessity  in  crimes 
is  not  to  be  admitted.  For  the  serpent  might  have  been  innocent,  who 
himself  stops  his  ears  that  they  may  be  deaf.  —  p.  110. 

There  is  not  any  necessity  of  sin  in  the  nature  of  men,  but  the  practice 
of  sin  arises  from  the  desires  of  the  will,  and  the  pleasures  of  vice. 

EPIPEL4.NIUS,  A.  D.  360.  — How  does  he  seem  to  retain  the  freedom  of 
his  will  in  this  world  ?  For  to  believe,  or  not  to  believe,  is  in  our  own 
power.  But  where  it  is  in  our  power  to  believe  or  not  to  believe,  it  is  in 
our  power  to  act  rightly  or  to  sin,  to  do  good  or  to  do  evil. 

Basil,  A.  D.  370.  —  They  attribute  to  the  heavenly  bodies  the  causes  of 
those  things  that  depend  on  every  one's  choice,  — I  mean  habits  of  virtue 
and  of  vice. 

If  the  origin  of  virtuous  or  vicious  actions  be  not  in  ourselves,  but  there 
is  an  innate  necessity,  there  is  no  need  of  legislators  to  prescribe  what  we 
are  to  do,  and  what  we  are  to  avoid  ;  there  is  no  need  of  judges  to  honor 
virtue  or  punish  wickedness.  For  it  is  not  the  injustice  of  the  thief  or 
murderer,  who  could  not  restrain  his  hand  even  if  he  would,  because  of  the 
insuperable  necessity  that  urges  him  to  the  actions.  —  p.  116. 

Gregory  of  Nazi.\:\zex,  A.  D.  370.  —  The  good  derived  from  nature  has 
no  claim  to  acceptance  ;  but  that  which  proceeds  from  free  will  is  deserv- 
ing of  praise.  What  merit  has  fire  in  burning  ?  for  the  burning  comes  by 
nature  [that  is,  necessity].  What  merit  has  water  in  descending  ?  for  this 
it  has  from  the  Creator.  What  merit  has  snow  in  being  cold  ?  or  the  sun 
in  sliining  ?  for  it  shines  whether  it  will  or  not.  —  p.  124. 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  245 

Gre(30iiy  of  Nyssa.  —  Let  any  consider  how  great  the  fticility  to  what 
is  bad  —  gliding  into  sin  spontaneously,  without  any  effort.  For  that 
any  one  should  become  wicked,  depends  solely  upon  choice  ;  and  the  will 
is  often  sufficient  for  the  completion  of  wickedness.  —  p.  127. 

Amurose,  a.  D.  374.  —  We  are  not  consti-aincd  to  obedience  by  a  servile 
necessity,  but  by  free  will,  whether  we  lean  to  virtue  or  to  vice. 

No  one  is  under  obligation  to  commit  a  fault,  unless  he  inclines  to  it  from 
his  own  will.  —  p.  13L 

Jerome,  A.  D.  3'J2.  —  No  seed  is  of  itself  bad,  for  God  made  all  things 
good  ;  but  bad  seed  has  arisen  from  those  who  by  their  own  will  are  bad, 
which  happens  from  will  and  not  from  nature  [that  is,  necessity]. — 
p.  111. 

That  Ave  profess  free  will,  and  can  turn  it  either  to  a  good  or  bad  pur- 
pose, according  to  our  determination,  is  owing  to  His  grace,  who  made  us 
after  His  image  and  likeness. 

AVe  have  now  come  to  Augustine.  And  now  it  will  be 
necessary  to  avail  myself  of  the  remarks  I  made  on  the  laws 
of  exposition.  I  said  that  it  was  necessary,  in  order  to  a 
right  exposition  of  any  ancient  instrument  in  the  Church,  to 
take  into  view  the  controversies  which  prevailed  at  the  time 
of  its  composition.  We  must  now  apply  this  especially  to 
Augustine.  Down  to  his  time,  the  free  will  and  natural 
ability  of  man  were  held  by  the  whole  Church,  against  the 
heretical  notions  of  a  blind  fate,  of  material  depravity,  and  of  - 
depravity  created  in  the  substratum  of  the  soul.  The  great 
effort,  hitherto,  had  been  to  maintain  the  liberty  or  uncoerced 
action  of  the  mind  in  choice,  with  the  power  of  contrary 
choice.  But  now  Pelagius  arose,  and  denied  the  doctrine  of 
the  fall :  and  from  this  time  it  became  necessary,  not  so  much 
to  prove  natural  ahility^  which  Pelagius  admitted,  as  to 
prove  a  moral  inability,  which  he  denied. 

The  Church  had  now  to  enter  upon  a  new  controversy,  and 
to  fix  her  eye  upon  the  question,  What  were  the  consequences 
of  the  fall  7     The  question  of  free  agency  was  no  longer  to  be 

VOL.  ITT.  21* 


246  VIEAVS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

argued,  for  that  was  not  now  controverted.     Both  Augustine 
and  Pelagius  admitted  it.     The  question  which  now  exists 
between  Dr.  Wilson  and  myself  was  not  at  issue  between  them. 
The  question,   indeed,  turned  on  the  same  words,  namely, 
free  will, —  but  it  did  not  mean  the  same  thing.     The  ques- 
tion between  them  was.  Is  the  will  unbiased  7  —  is  it  in  equi- 
librium ?     It  was  not,  whether  it  was  free  from  the  necessity 
of  fate,  or  the  coercion  of  matter,  or  of  created  depravity, — 
but  the  question  was,  Has  the  fall  given  it  a  bias  ?  has  it 
struck  it  out  of  equilibrium,  and  struck  the  balance  wrong  7 
Pelagius  said,  No.    Augustine  said.  Yes ;  and  while,  in  oppo- 
sition to  PelagiuS;  he  denied /ree  ivill  [meaning  unbiased  will], 
he  was  as  strong  in  favor  of  free  will  in  the  other  sense  as 
any  of  the  fathers  before  him  ;  as  strong  as  I  am  ;  —  so  that, 
if  I  am  a  Pelagian,  Augustine  was  a  Pelagian,  although  his 
whole  strength  was   exerted  against   Pelagius.     If  what  I 
teach  is  Pelagianism,  then  Augustine,  and  Calvin,  and  Lu- 
ther, and  all  the  best  writers  of  the  Church  in  this  age,  have 
been  Pelagians,  except  the  few  who  deny  natural  ability. 

Augustine,  A.  D.  398.  —  Free  will  is  given  to  the  soul,  -whicli  they  -who 
endeavor  to  weaken  by  trifling  reasoning  are  blind  to  such  a  degree  that 
they  do  not  even  understand  that  they  say  those  vain  and  sacrilegious 
things  with  their  own  will.  — p.  176.    , 

Which  free  will,  if  God  had  not  given,  there  could  be  no  just  sentence  of 
punishment,  nor  reward  for  right  conduct,  nor  a  divine  precept  to  repent 
of  sins,  nor  pardon  of  sins,  which  God  has  given  us  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  ;  because  he  who  does  not  sin  with  his  will  does  not  sbi  at  all. 
Which  sins,  as  I  have  said,  unless  we  had  free  will,  would  not  be  sins. 
Wherefore,-  if  it  be  evident  that  there  is  no  sin  where  there  is  not  free 
will,  I  desire  to  know  what  harm  the  soul  has  done,  that  it  should  be  pun- 
ished by  God,  or  repent  of  sin,  or  deserve  pardon,  since  it  has  been  guilty 
of  no  sin.  —  p.  214. 

That  there  is  free  will,  and  that  from  thence  every  one  sins  if  he  wills, 
and  that  he  does  not  sin  if  he  does  not  will,  I  prove  not  only  in  the  divine 


TRIAL    BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  247 

Scriptures,  which  j^ou  do  not  undei'Stand,  but  in  the  words  of  your  own 
Manes  himself  :  hear,  tlien,  concerning  free  will,  first,  the  Lord  himself 
when  he  speaks  of  two  trees,  which  you  yourself  have  mentioned  :  hear  him 
saying,  *'  Either  make  the  tree  good  and  his  fruit  good,  or  else  make  the 
tree  corrupt  and  his  fruit  corrupt."  When,  therefore,  he  says,  "do  this 
or  do  that,"  he  shows  power,  not  nature.  For  no  one,  except  God,  can 
make  a  tree,  but  every  one  has  it  in  his  will,  either  to  choose  those 

THINGS  that  are  GOOD  AND  BE  A  GOOD  TREE,  OR  TO  CHOOSE  ^'HOSE  THINGS 
THAT  ARE  BAD  AND  BE  A  BAD  TREE.  —  p.  215. 

The  next  authority  I  shall  adduce  is  that  of  Luther,  who 
holds  that,  in  the  exercise  of  his  own  faculties,  the  mind 
chooses,  by  its  very  constitution,  just  as  much  as  it  thinks  by 
the  exertion  of  its  intellect. 

There  is  (he  says)  no  restraint  either  on  the  divine  or  human  will.  In 
both  cases  the  will  docs  what  it  does,  whether  good  or  bad,  simply,  and  as 
at  perfect  liberty,  in  the  exercise  of  its  own  feculty, —  so  long  as  the  opera- 
tive grace  of  God  is  absent  from  us,  everything  we  do  has  in  it  a  mixture 
of  evil  ;  and,  therefore,  of  necessity,  our  works  avail  not  to  salvation. 
Here  I  do  not  mean  a  necessity  of  compulsion,  but  a  necessity  as  to  the 
ceriainiy  of  the  event.  A  man  who  has  not  the  Spii-it  of  God  does  evil 
willingly  and  spontaneously.     He  is  not  violently  impelled,  against  his 

will,  as  a  thief  is  to  the  gallows. Milnor,  vol.  v.  cent.  16,  chap.  12, 

sec.  2. 

Thus  we  see  that  it  was  Luther's  sentiment,  that  depravity 
does  not  destroy  the  innate  liberty  of  the  will,  or  its  natural 
power,  although  it  corrupts  and  perverts  its  exercise. 

I  now  proceed  to  quote  from  Calvin,  who  holds  that  neces- 
sity is  voluntary, —  that  is,  that  the  will  is  under  no  such 
necessity  as  destroys  its  own  power  of  choice  ;  that  there  was 
no  other  yoke  upon  man  but  voluntary  servitude  ;  and  I  shall 
show  that  the  doctrine  for  which  I  contend  is  not  new  divin- 
ity, but  old  Calvinism. 

Calvin  says  :  —  "That  God  is  voluntary  in  his  goodness, 
Satan  in  his  wickedness,  and  man  in  his  sin."     "  "We  must. 


248  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

therefore,  observe,"  he  says,  -'that  man,  having  been  cor- 
rupted by  the  fall,  sins  voluntarily,  not  with  reluctance  or 
constraint;  with  the  strongest  propensity  of  disposition, 
not  with  violent  coercion  ;  with  the  bias  of  his  own  pas- 
sions, and  not  with  external  compulsion."  He  quotes 
Bernard,  as  agreeing  with  Augustine,  in  saying,  "Among 
all  the  animals,  man  alone  is  free  ;  and  yet,  by  the  interven- 
tion of  sin,  he  suffers  a  species  of  violence,  but  from  the  will, 
not  from  nature  ;  so  that  he  is  not  thereby  deprived  of  his 
innate  liberty. ^^  Both  Augustine  and  the  Reformers  speak, 
indeed,  of  the  bondage  of  the  will,  and  of  the  necessity  of 
sinning,  and  of  the  impossibility  that  a  natural  man  should 
turn  and  save  himself  without  grace  ;  but  they  explain  them- 
selves to  mean  that  certainty  of  continuance  in  sin  which 
arises  from  a  perverted  free  agency,  and  not  from  any  natural 
impossibility.  For  "this  necessity,"  they  say  expressly,  "is 
voluntary."  "  We  are  oppressed  with  a  yoke,  but  no  other 
than  that  of  voluntary  servitude ;  therefore,  our  servitude 
renders  us  miserable,  and  our  will  renders  us  inexcusable." 
—  See  Calvin^ s  Instit.  Book  II.  ch.  iii.  sec.  5. 

I  always  exclude  coercion,  for  we  sin  voluntarily,  or  it  would  not  be  sin 
unless  it  were  voluntary.  —  Commentary  on  Rom.  7. 

My  next  quotation  is  from  Turretin,  the  apostle  of  ortho- 
doxy, whose  works  are  the  text-book  in  the  Princeton  Semi- 
nary : 

The  question  is  not  concerning  the  power  or  natural  faculty  of  will,  "  a 
qua  est  ipsum  velle  vel  nolUy'^  which  may  be  called,  first  power  and  the 
material  principle  of  moral  action  ;  for  this  always  remains  in  man,  and  by 
it  he  is  distinguished  from  the  brutes. 

^ ^  Velle  vel  nolle  ^''  means,  in  the  technics  of  the  day,  the 
power  to  choose  or  not  to  choose  in  every  case ;  and  this  he 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  249 

says  always  remains  in  man  in  every  condition,  as  by  it  ho  is 
ctistinguislied  from  the  brutes. 

The  natural  power  of  willing,  in  whatever  condition  we  may  be,  is  never 
taken  away  from  us,  insomuch  as  by  it  we  are  distinguished  from  the 
brutes.  —  p.  9'.)0, 

Howe  is  my  next  witness.  He  was  contemporary  with  the 
Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster.  He  quotes  the  follow- 
ing with  approbation  from  Twiss  : 

The  inability  to  do  what  is  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God  is  not  a 
natural,  but  moral  inability  ;  for  no  foculty  of  our  nature  is  taken  awdy 
from  us  by  original  sin  :  as  saith  Augustine,  —  It  has  taken  from  no  man 
the  faculty  of  discerning  truth.  The  power  still  remains,  by  which  we  can 
do  whatever  we  choose.  We  say  that  the  natural  power  of  doing  anything 
according  to  our  will  is  preserved  to  all,  but  no  moral  power. 

Dr.  WiTHERSPOON.  —  The  sinner  will,  perhaps,  say,  But  why  should  the 
sentence  be  so  severe  ?  The  law  may  be  right  in  itself,  but  it  is  hard,  or 
even  impossible,  for  me.  I  have  no  strength.  I  cannot  love  the  Lord  with 
all  my  heart.  I  am  altogether  insufficient  for  that  which  is  good.  0,  that 
you  would  but  consider  what  sort  of  inabihty  you  were  under  to  keep  the 
commandments  of  God.  Is  it  natural,  or  is  it  moral  ?  Is  it  really  want 
of  ability,  or  is  it  only  want  of  will  ?  Is  it  anything  more  than  the 
depravity  and  corruption  of  your  hearts,  which  is  itself  criminal,  and  the 
source  of  all  actual  transgressions  ?  Have  you  not  natural  faculties  and 
understanding,  will  and  affections,  a  wonderful  frame  of  body  and  a 
variety  of  members  ?  What  is  it  that  hinders  them  all  from  being  conse- 
crated to  God  ?  Are  they  not  as  proper  in  every  respect  for  his  service  as 
for  a  baser  purpose  ?  When  you  are  commanded  to  love  God  with  all  your 
heart,  this  surely  is  not  commanding  more  than  you  can  pay.  For,  if  you 
give  it  not  to  him,  you  will  give  it  to  something  else  that  is  far  from  being 
so  deserving  of  it.  The  law,  then,  is  not  impossible,  in  the  strict  and 
proper  sense,  even  to  you. 

He  (the  convinced  sinner)  will  see  that  there  is  nothing  to  hinder  his 
compliance  ivith  every  part  of  his  duty,  but  an  inward  aversion  to  God, 
which  is  the  very  essence  of  sin. 

Without  perplexing  ourselves  with  the  meaning  of  the  imputation  of 


250  VIEWS   OP  THEOLOaY. 

Adam'^  first  sin,  tliis  Tve  may  be  sensible  of,  that  the  guilt  of  all  inherent 
corruption  must  be  personal,  because  it  is  voluntary  and  consented  Ho. 
Of  both  these  things  a  discovery  of  the  glory  of  God  will  powerfully  convince 
the  sinner. 

Dr.  Watts.  —  Man  has  lost  not  his  natural  power  to  obey  the  law  ;  he 
is  bound,  then,  as  far  as  natural  powers  will  reach.  I  own  his  faculties 
are  greatly  corrupted  by  vicious  inclinations,  or  sinful  propensities,  which 
has  been  happily  called  by  our  divines  a  moral  inability  to  fulfil  the  law, 
rather  than  a  natural  impossibility  of  it. 

Dr.  Samuel  Spring,  of  Newburyport.  —  What  is  moral  action  ?  A  moral 
action  is  an  exercise  of  the  will  or  heart  of  man.  A  moral  action  is  the 
volition  of  a  moral  agent.  Nothing  is  moral  which  is  not  voluntary.  It  is 
as  absurd  to  talk  of  sin,  separate  from  moral  exercise  or  volition,  as  it  is  to 
talk  of  whiteness  separate  from  anything  which  is  white. 

Dr.  Spring,  of  New  York.  —  Seriously  considered,  it  is  impossible  to  sin 
without  acting  voluntarily.  The  divine  law  requires  nothing  but  voluntary 
obedience,  and  forbids  nothing  but  voluntary  disobedience.  >  As  men  can- 
not sin  without  acting,  nor  act  Vvdthout  choosing  to  act,  so  they  must  act 
voluntarily  in  sinning.  —  Springes  Essays,  p.  120. 

This  nature  of  sin,  as  actual  and  voluntary,  he  carries  out 
in  its  application  to  infants.     He  says  : 

Every  child  of  Adam  is  a  sinner  [an  actual  sinner]  from  the  moment  he 
becomes  a  child  of  Adam.  He  sins  not  in  deed  nor  word,  but  in  thought. 
The  thought  of  foolishness  is  sin.  *  *  *  Who  ever  heard  or  conceived 
of  a  living  immortal  soul  without  natural  faculties  and  moral  dispositions  ? 
Every  infant  that  has  attained  maturity  enough  to  have  a  soul  has  such 
a  soul  as  this.  It  is  a  soul  which  perceives,  reasons,  remembers,  feels, 
chooses,  and  has  the  faculty  of  judging  of  its  own  moral  dispositions.  — 
Spj'ing  on  JVative  Depravity,  pp.  10,  14. 

Henry  on  Ezekiel  18:  31. — The  reason  why  sinners  die  is  because 
they  will  die.  They  will  go  down  the  way  that  leads  to  death,  and  not 
come  up  to  the  terms  on  which  life  is  ofiered.  Herein  sinners  are  most 
unreasonable,  and  act  most  unaccountably. 

Dr.  Wilson,  of  Philadelphia.  —  No  mere  man  is  able,  either  of  himself, 
or  by  any  grace  received  in  his  life,  perfectly  to  keep  the  commandments 
of  God,  &c. 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  251 

The  ability  which  is  here  denied  is  evidently  of  the  moial 
kind,  because  the  aid  of  the  inability  is  supposed  to  be  grace, 
which  adds  no  7icid  faculties.  The  passage  taken  from  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xvi.,  is  a  representation  of  the  same 
tiling.  '•  This  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of  them- 
selves, but  wholly  from  the  Spirit  of  God."  Here  the  ability 
spoken  of  is  that  which  the  saint  has,  and  the  sinner  has  not, 
and  is  derived  from  the  Spirit  of  God ;  it  is,  therefore,  merely 
the  effect  of  regenerating  grace,  which  changes  the  hearty 
removes  the  prcji/dices,  and  thus  enlightens  the  understand' 
i)ig  ;  the  law  itself  ought  to  convince  such  minds  of  their  ina- 
bility to  render  an  acceptable  righteousness,  and  thus  lead  them 
to  Christ.  In  all  these  instances,  the  inability  consists  not  in 
the  natural^  that  is,  physical  defects,  either  of  mind  or  body ; 
if  it  were  such,  it  would  excuse ;  but  it  consists  in  the  party's 
aversion  to  holiness.  This  is  also  clear  from  another  pas- 
sage cited  in  the  essay,  page  15,  from  the  Confession  of 
Faith, —  "A  natural  man,  being  altogether  averse  from  that 
which  is  good,  and  .dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own 
strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereto." 
Here  the  words  ''^  dead  in  sin^''  express  a  higher  degree  of 
that  "  aversion  to  good''''  which  had  been  predicted  of  man 
in  his  natural  and  unrenewed  state,  and  suppose  the  party  to 
iiave  no  more  disposition  to  things  spiritual  and  holy  than  a 
dead  carcass  possesses  towards  objects  of  sense.  The  inability 
or  want  of  strength  here  mentioned  is  affirmed  of  the  natural 
man  ;  and  his  inability,  or  that  circumstance  in  which  it  con- 
sists, is  pointed  out  expressly  by  the  intercalary  member, 
"being  altogether  averse  from  that  which  is  good,  and  dead 
in  sin."  Language  can  scarcely  be  found  more  clearly  to 
show  that  the  only  culpable  inability  or  want  of  strength 


252  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

in  the  sinner  lies  in  his  aversion  to  that  which  is  good.  — 
pp.  14,  15. 

Dr.  Dickinson,  a  cotemporary  of  Dr.  Witherspoon  in 
New  Jersey,  and  a  cotemporary  also  with  Dr.  Greene  in 
the  early  part  of  his  life,  has  this  sentiment  on  the  point  of 
discussion:  "Let  inability  be  properly  denominated,  and 
called  obstinacy."  This  was  a  divine  of  admitted  and  unim- 
peachable orthodoxy,  a  man  of  eminent  abilities,  a  friend  to 
revivals  of  religion,  and  one  of  the  pillars  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church. 

President  Davis,  the  pioneer  and  planter  of  Presbyterian- 
ism  in  Virginia,  afterwards  President  of  Princeton  College, 
one  of  the  most  pungent,  popular,  and  successful  of  preachers, 
inquires,  "  What  is  inabihty  but  unwillingness?" 

Edwards  the  younger,  President  of  Union  College,  was  a 
Presbyterian,  and  what  does  he  say?  To  the  question, 
whether  the  moral  inability  which  his  father  taught  can  be 
removed  by  the  sinner,  his  answer  was:  "Yes;  and  the 
moment  you  deny  this,  you  change  the  whole  character  of 
the  inability,  together  with  the  whole  character  of  the  man  ; 
for  then  his  inability  ceases  to  be  obstinacy,  and  becomes 
physical  incapacity. ' ' 

WiTSius.  —  He  [Adam]  sinned  with  judgment  and  -will,  to  which  facul- 
ties liberty,  as  opposed  to  compulsion,  is  so  peculiar,  nay,  essential,  that 
there  can  be  neither  judgment  nor  will  unless  they  be  free.  —  Vol.  i.  p. 
198. 

The  Andover  Declaration,  subscribed  by  the  professors.  —  God's 
decrees  perfectly  consist  with  human  liberty,  God's  universal  agency  with 
the  agency  of  man,  and  man's  dependence  with  his  accountabihty.  Man 
has  understanding  and  corporeal  strength  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of 
him  ;  so  that  nothing  but  the  sinner's  aversion  to  holiness  prevents  his 
salvation.  —  Laws,  p.  9. 

Dr    Tyler   (see  National  Preacher,  vol.  ii.  pp.  IGl,  163).  —  Several 


TRIAL   BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  259 

ioctrines  of  the  Gospel  have  been  regarded  by  some  as  presenting 
insuperable  obstacles  to  their  salvation. 

The  doctrine  of  Human  Depravity  has  been  thus  regarded.  "  If  I  am 
entirely  depraved,^'  the  sinner  sometimes  says,  "  then  I  am  utterly  helpless. 
It  is  beyond  my  power  to  do  anything  which  God  requires  ;  and,  conse- 
quently, it  is  totally  impossible  that  I  should  comply  with  the  terms  of 
salvation  revealed  in  the  Gospel."  This  representation  proceeds  upon  an 
entire  misapprehension  as  to  the  nature  of  depravity.  Depravity  does  not 
destroy  moral  agency.  It  does  not  so  impair  the  natural  faculties  of  man 
as  to  disable  him  from  doing  his  duty,  if  he  will.  It  has  its  seat  in  the 
heart,  and  consists  in  a  perverse  and  sinful  inclination.  When  we  say 
that  man  is  entirely  depraved,  we  do  not  mean  that  he  is  a  poor,  unfortu- 
nate being,  who  is  commanded  to  do  impossibilities  ;  but  we  mean  that  he 
is  a  guilty  rebel,  who  voluntarily  refuses  to  yield  allegiance  to  the  God 
who  made  him.  We  mean  that  he  loves  sin,  and  is  unwilling  to  abandon 
it  ;  that  he  hates  his  duty,  and  is  unwilling  to  perform  it  ;  that  he  dislikes 
the  terms  of  salvatign,  and  is  unwilling  to  comply  with  them.  We  do  not 
mean  that  all  the  powers  and  faculties  of  his  soul  are  so  impaired  that  he 
could  not  do  his  duty  if  he  would ;  but  we  mean  that  he  will  not  do  his 
duty  when  he  can,  —  that,  in  the  full  possession  of  all  the  powers  of  moral_ 
agency,  and  with  penfect  ability  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  salvation,  if 
he  ivill,  he  chooses  the  road  that  leads  to  death,  and  will  not  come  to  Christ 
that  he  might  have  life.  This  supposes  no  difficulty  in  the  way  of  his 
salvation,  except  what  lies  in  a  perverse  and  obstinate  will. 

Again  :  the  doctrine  of  Regeneration  is  supposed  to  imply  an  insu- 
perable obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  sinner's  salvation.  We  often  hear  the 
sinner  reasoning  thus  :  "If  I  must  be  born  again,  in  order  to  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God,  — and  if  this  change  is  exclusively  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  a  work  which  he  is  under  no  obligations  to  perform,  and  which  my 
own  efforts  will  never  accomplish,  —  then  there  is  a  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
my  salvation  which  is  beyond  my  power  to  remove.  It  does  not  depend 
on  my  will,  but  on  the  will  of  God,  whether  I  shall  be  saved."  But  here 
again  the  sinner  labors  under  an  entire  misapprehension  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  change  in  question,  and  as  to  the  reason  why  this  change  is  neces- 
sary. What  is  it  to  be  born  again  ?  Simply  to  be  made  willing  to  do 
what  God  requires.  It  is  thus  represented  in  the  Scriptures  :  Thy  people 
shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power.  Why  is  it  necessary  that  men 
should  be  born  again  ?  Not  because  they  are  unable  to  do  their  duty,  if 
they  will  ;  but  because  they  are  unwilling  to  do  it.     It  is  their  depravity 

VOL.    IIL  22 


254  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

which  renders  this  siip,ematural  change  necessary.  But  their  depravity  is 
not  their  calamity  merely,  but  their  crime.  It  consists,  as. we  have  seen, 
in  a  perverse  inclination,  —  in  a  voluntary  and  obstinate  refusal  to  yield 
obedience  to  the  reasonable  commands  of  Jehovah.  What  the  sinner  needs, 
therefore,  is  to  have  this  perverse  inclination  changed  ;  that  is,  to  be  made 
willing  to  do  what  God  requires.  The  necessity  of  this  change,  therefore, 
supposes  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  his  salvation,  except  his  own  unwil- 
lingness to  do  his  duty. 

Dr.  Woods  (Letters  to  Dr.  Ware,  ch.  v.  p.  183). — According  to  our 
views,  there  can  be  no  such  necessity  in  the  case  as  implies  force  or 
coercion,  or  anything  contrary  to  perfect  voluntariness. 

What,  then,  is  the  freedom  which  belongs  to  a  moral  agent  ?  It  is  free- 
dom from  that  physical  coercion  or  force,  which  either  causes  actions  that 
are  not  voluntary,  or  prevents  those  which  the  agent  chooses  to  perform. 

I  grant  that  man  has  a  power  of  choosing  between  different  courses,  and 
of  yielding  to  either  of  two  opposite  motives.  —  Remarks  on  Ware,  pp. 
84,  35,  36. 

Men  have  by  nature  the  constitution,  they  have  all  the  faculties, 
essential  to  moral  agency. 

(Third  Letter  to  Dr.  Beecher,  —  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  vol.  vi.  No.  1 ,  pp. 
19 — 22.)  —  I  have  just  received  your  sermon  on  Dependence  and  Free 
Agency  ;  and,  according  to  a  suggestion  in  your  letter  to  me,  I  shall  pro- 
ceed to  remark  on  some  of  the  topics  which  it  introduces. 

Between  your  views  and  mine,  on  the  subject  of  man's  ability  and 
inability,  there  is  not,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  any  real  disagreement.  You 
do  indeed  sometimes  use  language  different  from  that  which  I  am  accus- 
tomed to  use.  But,  when  you  come  to  explain  your  language,  as  you  do  in 
your  second  letter,  and  in  your  sermon  just  published,  you  show  that  you 
have  a  meaning  which  I  can  fuUy  adopt.  In  the  first  place,  you .  do  what 
many  who  make  much  of  man's  ability  neglect  to  do  ;  that  is,  you  clearly 
make  the  distinction  between  natural  ability  and  inability,  and  moral. 
nN'atural  ability  you  explain  to  be  "  the  intellectual  and  moral  faculties 
which  God  has  given  to  men,  commensurate  with  his  requirements  ;  "  — 
*'  the  plenary  powers  of  a  free  agent ;  "  —  *'  such  a  capacity  for  obedience 
as  creates  perfect  obligation  to  obey."  You  say,  it  is  "what  the  law 
means,  when  it  commands  us  to  love  God  with  all  our  heart,  and  soul, 
and  mind,  and  strength.''^  The  sinner,  according  to  your  representation, 
is  under  no  natural  impossibility  to  obey  God  ;  that  is,  it  is  not  impossible 
for  him  to  obey  God  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is  impossible   for  him 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  255 

*  to  create  a  world."  To  all  this  I  fully  subscribe.  Here,  then,  is  no 
room  for  debate.  I  have  been  acquainted  with  ministers  who  have  differed 
widely  in. their  language  respecting  human  ability,  and  who.  have  had 
much  debate  on  the  subject,  and  have  seemed  to  entertain  opposite  opinions. 
But  I  doubt  not  they  would  all  coincide  with  the  above  statements.  They 
would  all  admit  that  man  has  those  intellectual  and  moral  faculties  which 
constitute  him  a  moral  agent,  justly  accountable  for  his  actions,  and  under 
perfect  obligation  to  obey  the  divine  law.  But  all  would  not  judge  it  best 
•to  give  to  these  faculties  the  name  of  ability^  or  even  of  natural  ability. 
.In  regard  to  the  words  by  which  the  sentiment  held  by  them  all  may  most 
properly  be  expressed,  there  would  be  a  difference.  And  would  not  this  be 
the  only  difference  ?  And  would  not  any  dispute  on  the  subject  be  logom- 
achy ?  Suppose  a  minister  of  Christ  does  not  like  the  expression,  that 
sinners  have  a  natural  ability  to  obey  the  divine  law.  But  he  admits  that 
they  have  those  faculties  of  mind  which  constitute  them  moral  and  account- 
able beings,  put  them  under  a  perfect  obligation  to  obey,  and  bring  on 
them  a  just  condemnation  for  disobedience.  That  is,  he  admits  all  that 
you  mean  by  natural  ability^  though  he  does  not  use  the  language. 
Respecting  this  you  and  he  may  differ.  But,  the  moment  you  lay  aside  the 
word  ability,  and  use  other  words  expressing  exactly  what  you  mean  by 
this,  the  difference  between  you  and  him  is  ended.  You  both  believe  that 
sinners  have  all  the  powers  necessary  to  moral  agents,  and  that  they  are 
under  perfect  obligation  to  do  what  God  commands :  though  you  may,  per- 
haps, attach  more  importance  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  and  may  give  it 
more  importance  in  your  preaching,  than  he  thinks  proper. 

The  same  as  to  inability.  I  find,  from  your  explanations,  that  you 
believe  the  sinner  to  be  the  subject  of  all  the  inability  which  I  have  ever 
attributed  to  him.  You  say  that  man,  in  his  unrenewed  state,  is  "  desti- 
tute of  holiness  and  prone  to  evil ;  "  "  that  he  has  an  inflexible  bias  of  will 
to  evil  ;  "  "a  sinfulness  of  heart  and  obliquity  of  will,  which  overrule  and 
pervert  his  free  agency  only  to  purposes  of  evil  ;  "  that  he  has  •'  an  obsti- 
nate will,  which  as  really  and  certainly  demands  the  interposition  of 
special  divine  influence  as  if  his  inability  were  natural  ;  "  that  '*  his  natu- 
ral ability  never  avails,  either  alone,  or  by  any  power  of  truth,  or  help  of 
man,  to  recover  him  from  alienation  to  obedience;  "  that  *'  the  special 
renovating  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  indispensable  to  his  salvation  ;  "  *'  that 
motives  and  obligation  are  by  his  obstinacy  swept  away  ;  "  and  "that  it  is 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  convince  him  of  sin,  to  enlighten  his  mind, 
to  renew  his  will,  and  to  persuade  and  enable  him  to  embrace  Christ ;  " 


256  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

that  "  tlie  powers  requisite  to  free  agency,  which  still  remain  in  degenerate 
man,  are  wholly  perverted,  and  hopeless  of  recovery  without  the  grace  of 
God  ;  "  *'  that  men,  as  sinners,  are  dependent  on  Christ  for  a  willingness 
to  do  anything  which  will  save  their  souls."  You  hold  it  to  be  •'  a  fact, 
that  mind,  once  ruined,  never  recovers  itself;  "  "that  the  disease  rages 
on,  unreclaimed  by  its  own  miseries,  and  only  exasperated  by  rejected 
remedies  ;  "  that  "  the  main-spring  of  the  soul  for  holy  action  is  gone, 
and  that  divine  influence  is  the  only  substitute." 

You  not  only  make  these  just  and  moving  representati(jps  of  the  state  of 
unregenerate  man,  but  you  expressly  speak  of  him  as  having  an  inability 
to  obey  God.  You  make  the  "  distinction  between  the  ability  of  man  as  a 
free  agent,  and  his  inability  as  a  sinner,"  and  say  "  it  is  a  distinction 
singularly  plain,  obvious  to  popular  apprehension,  and  sanctioned  by  the 
common  sense  of  all  men."  You  fully  justify  the  language  of  the  Bible  in 
ascribing  to  man  **  inability  to  obey  the  Gospel."  You  quote  the  passages 
which  declare  that  "  the  carnal  mind  cannot  be  subject  to  the  law  of  God  ; 
that  they  who  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God  ;"  and  you  say  the 
inability  spoken  of  means  the  impossibility  of  becoming  holy  by  any  philo- 
sophical culture  of  the  natural  powers,  or  by  any  possible  modification  of 
our  depraved  nature  ;  though  you  very  properly  take  care  to  guard  us 
against  supposing  that  the  inability  of  sinners  implies  "  an  absolute  natural 
impossibility,"  or  has  "  a  passive,  material  import."  You*  say,  also,  that 
"  no  language  is  more  frequent  in  the  common  intercourse  of  men  than  the 
terms  unable,  cannot  and  the  like,  to  express  slight  or  determined  and 
unchanging  aversion  ;  and  that  the  same  use  of  these  terms  pervades  the 
Bible  ;  "  that  "  inability,  meaning  only  voluntary  aversion,  or  permanent 
choice  or  disinclination,  is  ascribed  to  God,  to  Christ,  and  to  good  men,  in 
as  strong  terms  as  inability  to  obey  the  Gospel  is  ascribed  to  sinners." 

In  regard  to  the  above-cited  representations  of  yours,  I  see  no  ground  for 
controversy.  I  am  aware  that,  in  your  preaching,  you  are  accustomed  to 
say  less  frequently  than  many  others  that  sinners  cannot  believe  and 
obey.  But,  even  if  you  should  think  it  best,  as  some  do,  to  go  further,  and 
wholly  to  avoid  expressions  of  that  kind,  still,  while  in  other  words  you 
attribute  to  the  sinner  everything  which  I  and  others  mean  by  such  ex- 
pressions, there  would  be  no  diiference  except  in  words.  In  the  unmeas- 
ured abundance  of  remarks  which  have  lately  been  made  on  the  subject 
of  ability  and  inability,  it  has  not  been  always  remembered  that  the  prin- 
cipal, if  not  the  only  difierence  which  exists  among  thinking  and  candid 
men,  is  verbal.     If  this  should  be  kept  in  mind,  as  it  ought  to  be,  and  if 


TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  Q&f 

men  who  arc  going  to  dispute  would  just  stop  to  inquire  tuhat  they  are 
going  to  dispute  about,  it  would  very  much  narroio  the  ground  of  debate, 
and  diminish,  if  not  remove,  the  occasions  of  strife. 

Still,  I  liold  the  question  al)out  the  use  of  particular  words  to  be  of  no 
small  importance.  Words  arc  the  usual  means  of  conveying  the  thoughts 
of  our  own  minds  to  the  minds  of  others.  If,  then,  our  words  are  not  well 
chosen,  we  may  fail  of  communicating  what  we  wish,  and  may  communi- 
cate something  very  dilfercnt  ;  and  so  the  gift  of  speech,  instead  of  con- 
tributing to  useful  purposes,  may  become  positively  hurtful. 

It  is  not  my  design  to  controvert  any  of  the  positions  which  you  lay 
down  on  the  subject  of  ability  and  inability.  Putting  a  candid  and  fair 
construction  on  your  language,  and  considering  you  as  agreeing  with  those 
excellent  authors  to  whom  you  refer  with  approbation,  I  am  satisfied,  as  I 
have  before  said,  that  there  is  no  material  ditfercnce  between  your  opinions 
and  mine  on  this  subject.  My  remarks,  therefore,  will  relate  chiefly,  if  not 
wholly,  to  modes  of  expression  ;  though  not  so  much  to  any  which  you 
employ,  as  to  those  employed  by  others.  There  is  danger,  I  think,  of  a 
'wrong  impression  being  made  on  the  minds  of  men,  from  the  manner  in 
which  some  preachers  speak  respecting  the  sinner's  ability.  And  although 
there  is  much  in  what  you  have  lately  given  to  the  public  which  is  well 
calculated  to  guard  against  this  danger,  I  humbly  conceive  that  still 
greater  caution  in  your  manner  of  treating  the  subject  would  do  no 
hurt. 

Dr.  Bellamy. — "The  law  is  exactly  upon  a  level  with  our  natural 
capacities  ;  it  only  requires  us  to  love  God  with  all  our  hearts.  Hence,  as  to 
natural  capacity,  all  mankind  are  capable  of  a  perfect  conformity  to  this 
law  ;  for  the  law  requires  of  no  man  any  more  than  to  love  God  with  all 
his  heart.  The  sinning  angels  have  the  same  natural  capacities  now  as 
they  had  before  they  fell  ;  they  have  the  same  faculties,  called  the  under- 
standing and  will  ;  they  are  still  the  same  beings,  as  to  their  natural 
powers.  Their  temper,  indeed,  is  diflferent,  but  their  capacity  is  the  same  ; 
therefore,  as  to  natural  capacity,  they  are  as  capable  of  a  perfect  conform- 
ity to  the  law  of  their  Creator  as  ever  they  were.  So  Adam,  after  his  fall, 
had  the  same  soul  that  he  had  before,  as  to  his  natural  capacities,  though 
of  a  very  different  temper  ;  and  therefore,  in  that  respect,  was  as  capable 
of  a  perfect  conformity  to  the  law  as  ever.  And  it  is  plainly  the  case,  that 
all  mankind,  as  to  their  natural  capacities,  are  capable  of  a  perfect  con- 
formity to  the  law,  from  this,  —  that  when  sinners  are  converted,  they  have 
no  new  natural  faculties,  though  they  have  a  new  temper  ;  and  when  they 
VOL.    IIL  22* 


258  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

come  to  love  God  with  all  their  hearts  in  heaveu,  still  they  will  have  the 
same  hearts,  as  to  their  natural  faculties,  and  may  in  this  respect  be 
justly  looked  upon  as  the  very  same  beings.  When,  therefore,  men  cry 
out  against  the  holy  law  of  God,  which  requires  us  only  to  love  him  with 
all  our  hearts,  and  say,  "It  is  not  just  in  God  to  require  more  than  we 
can  do,  and  then  threaten  to  damn  us  for  not  doing,"  they  ought  to  stay 
a  while,  ^ind  consider  what  they  say,  and  tell  what  they  mean  by  their  can 
do  ;  for  it  is  plain  that  the  law  is  exactly  upon  a  level  with  our  natui'al 
capacities,  and  that  in  this  respect  we  are  fully  capable  of  a  perfect  con- 
formity thereto.  And  it  will  be  impossible  for  us  to  excuse  ourselves  by  an 
inability  arising  from  any  other  quarter."  "And  finally,  this  want  of  a- 
good  temper,  this  voluntary  and  stubborn  aversion  to  God,  and  love  to 
themselves^  the  world  and  sin,  is  all  that  renders  the  immediate  injluences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  so  absolutely  necessary,  or,  indeed,  at  all  needful,  to 
recover  and  bring  them  to  love  God  with  all  their  hearts.^^ —  True  Reli- 
gion Delineated,  Disc.  i.  sec.  3. 

Dr.  Sajiuel  Hopkins.  — "It  has  been  thought  and  urged  by  many  that 
fallen  man  cannot  be  wholly  blamable  for  his  moral  depravity,  because  he 
has  lost  his  power  to  do  that  which  is  good,  and  is  wholly  unable  to  change 
an^  renew  his  depraved  heart.  But  what  has  been  before  observed  must 
be  here  kept  in  mind,  —  that  man  has  not  lost  any  of  his  natural  powers  of 
understanding  and  will,  &c.,  by  becoming  sinful.  He  has  lost  his  inclina- 
tion, or  is  wholly  without  any  inclination  to  serve  and  obey  his  Maker, 
and  entirely  opposed  to  it.  In  this  his  sinfulness  consists  ;  and  in  this  lies 
his  blame  and  guilt,  and  in  nothing  else  ;  and  the  stronger  and  more  fixed 
the  opposition  to  the  law  of  God  is,  and  the  further  he  is  from  any  inclina- 
tion to  obey,  the  more  blamable  and  inexcusable  he  is.  Nothing  but  the 
opposition  of  the  heart,  or  will  of  man,  to  coming  to  Christ,  is,  or  can  be, 
in  the  way  of  his  coming.  So  long  as  this  continues,  and  his  heart  is 
wholly  opposed  to  Christ,  he  cannot  come  to  him  ;  it  is  impossible,  and  will 
continue  so,  until  his  unwillingness,  his  opposition  to  coming  to  Christ,  be 
removed  by  a  cliange  and  renovation  of  his  heart  by  divine  grace,  and  be 
made  willing  in  the  day  of  God's  power."  "  Nothing  is  necessary  but  the 
renovation  of  the  will,  in  order  to  set  everything  right  in  the  human  soul." 
—  System  of  Divinity,  Part  i.  ch.  8,  and  Part  ii.  ch.  4. 

Dr.  Smalley.  —  "  The  whole  Bible  evidently  goes  upon  the  supposition 
that  man  is  a  free  agent ;  and  so  do  all  mankind  in  their  treatment  of  one 
another."  "  It  is  certain  that  no  natural  men,  except  idiots,  or  such  as  are 
quite  delirious,  are  totally  incapable  of  good  works  for  want  of  understand 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  269 

ing."  "  The  power  of  will  is  not  the  deficiency  in  natural  men."  "  "Were  men 
destitute  of  understanding  to  know  what  is  right,  or  destitute  of  power  to 
choose  according  to  their  own  disposition,  or  destitute  of  members  to  act 
according  to  their  own  choice,  they  would  so  far  not  be  proper  subjects  of 
commands,  and  no  blame  would  lie  upon  them  for  not  obeying.  But  no 
such  powers  of  moral  agency  are  the  things  wanting  in  natural  men. 
They  have  hands  and  heads  sutliciently  good,  and  a  sufficient  power  to  will 
whatever  is  agreeable  to  them.  All  they  want  is  a  good  heart.  Their 
inability  is  therefore  their  sin,  and  not  their  excuse." —  Sermons,  10,  IG. 
Dr.  Stei'iien  West.  —  It  therefore  appcarcth  that  all  those  voluntary 
exercises  and  affections  which  are  required  of  us  in  the  divine  law  may  be 
said  to  be  in  our  power.  There  is  no  opposition  to  any  obedience  which  is 
claimed  by  the  divine  law,  except  it  be  in  our  wills.  —  On  Moral  Agency y 
Part  I.  sec.  2. 

Dr.  Nathan  Strong.  —  Here  the  proud  heart  objects.  Can  this  be 
cause  of  rejoicing,  that  I  am  in  the  hand  of  a  most  absolute  sovereign  ?  Is 
this  consistent  with  my  dignity  as  a  rational  creature  and  a  free  agent  ? 
Truly  it  is.  If  thy  reason  be  exercised  right,  all  its  dictates  will  be  in  con- 
formity to  the  sovereign  counsel  and  acting  of  God.  If  thy  heart  be 
opposed  to  infinite  reason,  or- prejudices  thy  reason,  it  is  the  depravity  of 
thy  heart,  and  not  the  sovereignty  o"  God,  which  degrades,  and  takes  dig- 
nity away  from  thee.  Neither  is  thy  dignity  as  a  free  agent  lessened. 
Art  thou  not  as  free  in  sinning  as  the  holy  angels  and  holy  men  are  in 
loving  and  obeying  God  ?  Is  not  sin  thy  choice  ?  Dost  thou  not  sin 
because  thou  lovest  sin  ?  The  sovereignty  of  God  will  never  destroy  thy 
freedom  as  a  rational  agent,  but  an  evil  use  of  this  freedom  hath  made  thee 
base,  and  without  repentance  will  be  the  means  of  thy  misery  forever.  — 
Sermons,  vol.  i.  ser.  4. 

Dr.  Dwigut.  —  "  The  nature  of  this  inability  to  obey  the  law  of  God  is, 
in  my  own  view,  completely  indicated  by  the  word  indisposition,  or  the 
word  disinclination.''''  "  The  real  and  only  reason  why  we  do  not  perform 
tliis  obedience  [perfect  obedience  to  the  law  of  God]  is,  that  we  do  not 
possess  such  a  disposition  as  that  of  angels.  Our  natural  powers  are 
plainly  sufficient :  our  inclination  only  defective."  "  There  is  no  more  diffi- 
culty in  obeying  God  than  in  doing  anything  else  to  which  our  inclination 
is  opposed  with  equal  strength  and  obstinacy."  "  Indisposition  to  come  to 
Christ  is  the  true  and  the  only  difficulty  which  lies  in  our  way.  Those  who 
cannot  come,  therefore,  are  those,  and  those  only,  who  will  not.  The 
words  can  and  cannot  are  used  in  the  Scriptures,  just  as  they  are  used 


260  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

in  the  common  intercom^se  of  mankind,  to  express  xvillingness  or  unwil- 
lingness. "  "  From  these  observations  it  is  evident  that  the  disobedience  of 
mankind  is  their  own  flmlt."  And  "  the  degree  of  our  inability  to  obey  the 
divine  law  does  in  no  case  lessen  our  guilt. "  And  "  these  observations  teach 
us  the  propriety  of  urging  sinners  to  immediate  repentance."  —  Theology, 
Sermon  133. 

The  Assembly's  narrative  for  1819  declares  that  the 
destruction  of  the  finally  impenitent  is  charged  "wholly 
upon  their  own  unwillingness  to  accept  of  the  merciful  pro- 
vision made  in  the  Gospel." 

Rev.  John  Matthews,  D.D.,  Theological  Professor  of  South  Hanover 
Seminary  (commended  by  Dr.  Wilson  as  correct).  Our  case,  though  in 
some  respects  it  beare  a  striking  resemblance  to  those  who  sleep  in  the 
grave,  yet  in  others  is  widely  different.  They  make  no  opposition  to  the 
active  pui'suits  of  life.  Nor  does  any  blame  attach  to  them  on  account  of 
their  insensibility.  Not  so,  however,  with  us.  We  have  eyes,  but  we  see 
not  ;  ears,  but  we  hear  not  ;  we  have,  indeed,  all  the  intellectual  faculties 
and  moral  powers  which  belong  to  rational  beings  ;  but  they  are  devoted 
to  the  world,  they  are  emploxjed  against  God  and  his  government. 
Instead  of  love,  the  heart  is  influenced  by  enmity  against  God.  Instead  of 
repentance,  there  is  hardness  of  heart.  Instead  of  faith,  by  which  the 
Saviour  is  received,  there  is  unbelief,  by  which,  with  all  his  blessings,  he 
is  rejected.  We  possess,  indeed,  all  the  natural  faculties  which  God 
demands  in  his  service  ;  but  we  are  without  the  moral  power.  We  have 
not  the  disposition,  the  desire,  to  employ  them  in  his  service.  This  want 
of  disposition,  instead  of  furnishing  the  shadow  of  excuse  for  our  unbelief 
and  impenitence,  is  the  very  essence  of  sin,  the  demonstration  of  our  guilt. 
Here,  then,  is  work  for  Omnipotence  itself.  Here  is  not  only  insensibility 
to  be  quickened,  but  here  is  opposition,  here  is  enmity,  to  be  destroyed. 
The  art  and  maxims  of  men  may  change,  in  some  degree,  the  outward 
appearances,  but  they  never  can  reach  the  seat  of  the  disease.  There  it 
will  remain,  and  there  it  will  operate,  after  all  that  created  wisdom  and 
power  can  do.  That  power  which  can  start  the  pulse  of  spiritual  life  within 
us  must  reach  and  control  the  rery  origin  of  thought,  must  change  our 
very  motives.  Our  case  would  be  hopeless,  if  our  restoration  depended  on 
the  skill  and  efforts  of  created  agents. 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  261 

I  now  beg  leave  to  adduce  the  testimony  of  Dr.  "Wilson 
himself.  This  passage  from  Dr.  Matthews  goes  the  whole 
length  of  all  that  I  hold  in  respect  to  natural  ability.  If 
this  is  not  heresy,  it  is  all  I  mean,  and  all  I  teach,  or  ever 
did  teach.  If  Dr.  Wilson  is  not  opposed  to  this,  then  he  has 
misunderstood  me,  and  he  and  I  think  alike.  If  he  agrees  to 
this,  then  he  and  I  do  agree ;  for  I  challenge  man  or  angel  to 
find  anything  like  a  discrepancy,  and  I  challenge  him  to  find 
any.  That  he  does  agree  to  this  is  manifest,  and  two  things 
which  are  equal  to  the  same  are  equal  to  each  other.  In  the 
notes  he  says : 

Thus,  it  is  evident,  that  without  conference  or  correspondence,  or  even 
personal  acquaintance,  there  are  ministers  in  the  Presbyterian  Church 
■who  can  and  do  speak  the  same  things,  who  can  and  do  speak  the  language 
of  the  true  Reformers  in  all  ages.  May  the  Lord  increase  their  number, 
and  bind  up  the  breach  of  his  people  ! 

My  argument  is  this  :  —  The  fact  that  these  writers  held 
the  opinions  wdiich  they  have  here  declared  I  do  not  bring 
as  proof  absolute  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  teaches  as  they 
held ;  but  that  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the  framers  of 
that  instrument,  belonging  to  this  class  of  men,  and  standing 
in  the  same  rank  with  them,  did  not  teach  doctrines  in  direct 
contradiction  to  this.  I  have  brought  down  these  testimonies 
to  the  present  time,  because  these  expositions  throw  light 
upon  the  pages  of  the  Confession,  by  showing  the  impression 
which  it  made  on  these  writers,  and  the  sense  in  which  they 
received  it.  It  would  be  one  of  the  strongest  anomalies  in 
the  whole  history  of  the  human  mind,  that  men  who  knew  all 
about  the  controversy  of  Augustine  and  Pelagius,  as  well  as 
the  controversy  wliich  preceded,  should,  when  they  sat  down 
to  make  a  Confession  of  Faith,  go  directly  against  the  whole 
stream  of  the  faith  of  the  Church. 


262  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  the  Christian  fathers,  and  the 
received  doctrine  of  the  Orthodox  Church,  from  the  beginning 
to  this  day.     I  now  add : 

That  the  Bible  teaches  the  free  agency  and 
natural  ability  of  man  to  obey  or  disobey,  uncoerced 
by  any  natural  necessity  or  hindrance,  as  his  quali- 
fication for  moral  government,  and  the  foundation 
of  his  obligation  and  accountability. 

1.  That  the  Bible  has  been  understood  to  teach  this  by  the 
universal  Orthodox  Church,  is  a  strong  presuinptive  argu- 
ment that  the  Bible  does  teach  it. 

It  was  made  to  be  understood  by  fallen  man,  and  by  com- 
mon uneducated  minds,  in  respect  to  its  most  vital  doctrines ; 
and  there  is  no  doctrine  more  immediately  fundamental  than 
that  of  free  agency  as  the  ground  of  obligation  and  aceOuntr 
ability.  Now,  the  impression  which  the  Bible  makes  "ori.^ 
common  minds,  who,  unsophisticated  by  theory,  read  and 
receive  its  impression,  is,  that  there  remains  to  man,  in  th^ 
estimation  of  Heaven,  the  capacity  of  choosing  whom  he  will 
serve,  God  or  the  world,  and  of  choosing  life  or  death  ■  and 
that  his  obligation  to  choose  the  good  and  refuse  the  evil  orig- 
inates in  their  constitutional  power  of  choice,  with  power  of 
contrary  choice.  This  is  the  popular  feeling  and  belief  of 
those  who  read  the  Bible. 

But,  if  the  uninstructed  may  be  supposed  to  mistake,,  it  was 
certainly  intended  to  be  intelhgible  to  the  most  talented, 
learned,  and  holy  men,  who  make  the  study  and  translation 
and  exposition  of  it  their  professional  and  habitual  employment. 

But,  unanswerably,  the  Bible  has  been  understood  to  teach 
the  doctrine  of  man's  free  agency  and  natural  ability,  in  the 
manner  I  have  above  explained,  by  the  ablest,  holiest,  and 
most  learned  men.     These,  interpreting  the  Bible  in  accord- 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  263 

ance  ^vith  the  laws  of  language  and  the  best  operations  of 
sanctified  intellect,  have  understood  it  to  teach  the  natural 
ability  of  man  as  the  foundation  of  obligation,  and  the  moral 
inability  of  man  as  consisting  in  a  perverse  will.  If  this 
decision  of  so  many  men  of  talented  mind,  and  learning,  and 
labor,  is  false,  all  attempts  to  expound  the  Bible  are  vain, — • 
the  Bible  is  yet  a  sealed  book, —  and  all  the  promises  of  wis- 
dom to  those  who  ask,  and  of  guidance  in  judgment  to  the 
meek,  have,  unanswered,  been  scattered  to  the  wind. 

2.  The  implications  of  the  Bible  teach  the  free  agency  of 
man  as  including  a  natural  ability  to  obey,  as  the  qualifica- 
tion for  moral  government,  and  the  foundation  of  account- 
ability. 

The  directory  precepts,  the  commands  and  prohibitions,  the 
rewards  and  punishments,  the  exhortations,  warnings,  en- 
treaties and  expostulations,  of  the  Bible,  teach  this  ;  the  oath 
of  God's  preference  that  fallen  man  should  obey  rather  than 
disobey,  and  the  regrets  and  the  wonder  of  heaven  at  his 
obstinacy  and  unbelief,  teach  the  same  ;  and  the  punishment, 
executed  not  only  for  what  he  did  do  that  was  wrong,  but  be- 
cause in  place  of  this  he  did  not  do  what  was  right, —  because 
he  did  not  tiirn^  did  not  repent,  did  not  believe, —  all  imply 
ability.  That  such  implications  are  multiplied  throughout 
the  Bible,  will  not  be  denied ;  that  they  do  strongly  imply 
capacity  of  ^ight  or  of  wrong  choice,  and  are  based  on  that 
supposition,  is  equally  plain.  But  what  would  be  thought  of 
a  human  government  that  should  address  such  language  to 
stocks  and  stones,  or  to  animals,  or  to  machines  moved  by 
steam  or  water  power  7  And  why  should  they  be  addressed 
to  man,  if  he  has  no  more  power  to  obey  than  these  ? 

If  obedience  to  commands,  exhortations  and  entreaties,  is 
prevented  by  a  constitutional  necessity^  a  natural  impossi- 


264  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

bility  of  choosing  right,  and  the  disobedient  choice  is  also 
the  unavoidable,  coerced  result  of  a  constitutional  necessity, 
over  which  the  will  has  no  power,  but  of  which  it  is  the 
unavoidable 'effect,  then  choice  is  as  much  the  effect  of  a 
natural  cause  as  any  other  natural  effect ;  and  directory 
precepts,  and  rewards  and  penalties,  and  exhortations  and 
entreaties,  are  as  irrelevant  and  superfluous  as  if  they  were 
addressed  to  our  appetites,  or  applied  to  secure  the  beating  of 
the  heart,  or  the  circulation  of  the  blood. 

If  a  created  constitution  secures  the  volition,  whatever  it 
,Day  be,  what  need  of  another  apparatus  to  produce  it  ?  Is 
not  one  cause  sufficient?  and,  if  it  were  not,  why  add  an 
apparatus  which  is  totally  irrelevant  and  powerless?  The 
adoption  of  law  and  motive,  then,  as  the  means  of  moral 
government,  impHes  irresistibly  that  God's  unerring  wisdom 
has  not  intrusted  the  will  of  men,  like  instinctive  actions,  to 
the  guardianship  of  natural  causes  ;  and  has  committed  it  to 
the  guidance  and  guardianship  of  law,  and  reward  and  pun- 
ishment, with  such  capacity  that  choice  in  accordance  with 
requirement  is  possible  and  reasonable :  and  contrary  choice 
possible  also,  and  inexcusable,  and  justly  punishable.  On 
this  argument,  we  observe  : 

That  these  implications  of  the  Bible  do  clearly,  and  in  the 
strongest  possible  manner,  treat  the  doctrine  of  man's  free 
agency  and  natural  ability  to  obey  or  disobey  the  Gospel  as 
the  foundation  of  his  obhgation.  Implication  is  the  most 
uniform  and  established  mode  of  scriptural  teaching,  in  respect 
to  natural,  mental,  and  moral  philosophy.  It  teaches  almost 
nothing  by  formal  definitions,  and  regular  propositions,  and 
proofs ;  but  assumes  and  takes  for  granted  whatever  truths 
of  this  kind  it  has  occasion  to  recognize.  But  the  assump- 
tions of  an  inspired  unerring  book, —  the  assumptions  of  Him 


TEIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  265 

who  created  and  organized  the  world,  and  forms  and  governs 
the  mind, — are  the  most  powerful,  unequivocal,  infallible  mode 
of  teaching.  In  demonstration  men  may  err,  and  come  out 
with  false  conclusions  ;  but  God,  in  his  assumptions,  cannot 
err.  The  Bible,  therefore,  teaches  in  the  most  direct  and 
forcible  manner  the  free  agency  and  natural  ability  of  men,  as 
qualified  subjects  of  moral  government.  The  supposition  that 
these  assumptions  of  the  Bible  are  not  true,  and  that  man, 
after  all,  is  not  able  to  modify  and  diversify  his  choice  indefi- 
nitely, but  chooses  sin  or  holiness  by  a  coercive  necessity, — 
that  he  cannot  but  sin  when  he  does  sin,  more  than  rivers  of 
muddy  water  can  purify  themselves,  and  stop  flowing, —  and 
cannot  turn  and  prefer  the  Creator  to  the  creature,  more  than 
the  prone  waters  can  roll  back  their  tide  to  their  fountains, 
—  destroys  the  credibility  of  the  Bible  as  an  inspired  book. 

Hitherto,  all  the  assumptions  of  the  Bible  have  been 
marked  with  a  uniform  and  wonderful  exactness. 

Its  astronomical,  geographical,  historical,  chronological,  and 
all  other  implications,  are  always  verified  in  the  results  of  the 
strictest  examination. 

And  it  is  necessary  to  the  credibility  of  the  Bible  that  it 
should  be  so.  If  it  spoke  of  the  visible  heavens  in  a  manner 
difibrent  from  their  appearance  to  the  eye, —  and  if  its  geog- 
raphy, and  chronology,  and  natural  history,  were  at  every 
step  fiilsified  by  scientific  investigations, —  if  the  lion  and  the 
ostrich  and  the  war-horse  of  the  Bible  were  verified  by  no  cor- 
respondences in  nature,  and  all  its  assumption  of  countries 
and  scenery  and  natural  productions  Avere  contradicted  by 
the  condition  of  the  countries  alluded  to, —  it  would  disprove 
the  credibility  of  the  Bible,  as  an  inspired  book.  Infidels, 
aware  of  this  fact,  have  made  ceaseless  efibrts  to  catch  the 
Bible  tripping  somewhere  in  the  field  of  natural  science,  and 

VOL.  III.  23 


266  VIEWS    OF  THEOLOGY. 

have  exulted  exceedingly  "svlien  they  supposed  they  had  de- 
tected a  few  mistakes  of  this  description.  But  no  sooner  did 
the  lamp  of  true  philosophy  follow  the  footsteps  of  their  pre- 
sumptuous ignorance,  than  it  dissipated  their  premature 
rejoicing,  by  discovering  the  exact  verity  of  the  Bible  in  all 
its  assumptions  of  the  attributes  and  laws  of  nature. 

But  what  would  be  said,  if,  in  tracing  the  implications  of 
the  Bible  in  respect  to  the  qualifications  of  mind  for  account- 
able agency  and  government  by  law,  we  should  find  them  all 
contradicted?  What  if,  while  natural  philosophy  verified, 
mental  and  moral  philosophy  contradicted,  the  fundamental 
principles  it  takes  for  granted ;  the  Bible  assuming  everywhere 
that  man  is  free  to  choose  with  power  of  contrary  choice,  when, 
in  fact,  as  the  truth  is  developed,  it  appears  that  he  is  no 
more  able,  as  a  free  agent,  to  choose  at  all,  than  a  spark  is  to 
strike  itself  out  without  the  collision  of  flint  and  steel ;  and  no 
more  able  to  choose  otherwise  than  he  does  choose,  than  water 
is  to  be  fire,  or  fire  water  7 

Christianity  could  not  stand  before  such  contradictions  of 
revelation  by  science.  It  Avould  open  upon  us  the  flood-gates 
of  an  all-pervading,  irresistible  infidelity.  Nay,  it  would  not 
stop  at  infidelity,  —  it  would  underm.ine  all  confidence  in  con- 
sciousness or  argument,  and  terminate  in  universal  scepticism. 

Our  argument  against  transubstantiation  is,  that  our  senses  ' 
are  a  correct  revelation  of  the  reality  and  attributes  of  external 
things ;  that  no  wi'itten  revelation  from  Heaven  can  contra- 
dict the  testimony  of  this  constitutional  revelation  by  the 
senses  concerning  attributes  of  external  objects,  without  sup- 
posing the  conflict  of  contrary  revelations,  which  would  not 
only  destroy  the  credibility  of  the  Bible,  but  vacate  all  confi- 
dence in  the  testimony  of  the  senses. 

These   implications   are  corroborated   by  the  analogy  of 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  267 

cause  and  effect  througli  all  the  -works  of  God  ;  by  the' com- 
mon sense  and  universal  consciousness  of  men ;  by  all  the 
results  of  mental  analysis,  uniting  philosophers  in  the  defi- 
nition of  free  agency ;  and  by  the  concession  of  individuals 
and  the  public  sentiment  of  the  world,  as  disclosed  in  moral 
government  as  the  means  of  elevating  society.  But,  if  these 
implications  of  the  Bible  of  a  free  agency  and  natural  ability 
to  obey,  commensurate  with  law  thus  corroborated,  are  not 
true,  it  brino;s  on  the  Bible  overwhelming;  evidence  of  incor- 
rcct  teaching ;  and  if,  on  this  tremendous  subject,  all  its  im- 
plications are  false,  the  Bible  fails  to  sustain  its  claims,  and 
the  whole  system  of  revelation  and  its  doctrines  goes  out  in 
darkness. 

3.  The  Bible  does  in  no  way  contradict  its  OAvn  implica- 
tions, by  teaching  the  natural  inability  of  man  to  render  to 
God  a  holy  and  spiritual  obedience. 

It  applies  to  fallen  man,  in  respect  to  spiritual  obedience, 
the  terms  cannot,  unable,  &c.  This  is  not  denied;  it 
is  admitted  —  it  is  insisted  on.  But  the  question  is,  what 
docs  the  term  inabilUy  mean,  when  applied  to  a  free  agent 
and  a  totally-depraved  sinner?  —  are  the  terms  cannot ^ 
unable,  kc,  used  in  the  common  language  of  men  and  in  the 
Bible  only  in  one  sense,  and  that  the  sense  of  a  natural  im- 
possibility ?  If  so,  the  question  is  settled,  and  we  are  at 
fault.  But  if  there  arc  two  senses  in  which  these  terms  are 
used  in  common  and  in  scriptural  language,  one  of  which 
means  a  natural  impossibility,  and  the  other  respects  an  event 
possible  in  respect  to  the  capacity  of  the  agent,  but  pre- 
vented by  a  perverse  choice, —  then,  to  deny  this  distinction, 
and  condense  both,  by  an  arbitrary  assertion,  into  a  natural 
impossibility,  is  to  beg  the  question  in  dispute, —  to  do  vio- 
lence to  the  laws  of  exposition,  and  substitute  assertion  for 


268  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

argument.  Yet  this,  so  far  as  I  am  apprized,  is  the  course 
■which  has  been  adopted  to  disprove  the  natural  abihty  of  man 
to  obey.  Those  passages  which  mean  aversion  and  obstinacy 
in  sin,  and  the  certainty  of  liis  perdition  without  the  special 
grace  of  God,  are  avssumed  to  mean  natural  impossibility. 
The  terms  "cannot  and  unable,"  which  have  no  reference  to 
his  capacity  as  a  free  agent,  and  respect  only  and  wholly  his 
character  and  obstinacy  as  a  sinner,  are  quoted,  unexplained 
and  unproved  in  respect  to  their  assumed  meaning;  and, 
merely  by  the  reiteration  of  unexplained  sound,  the  doctrine 
of  moral  inability  is  attempted  to  be  battered  down,  and  that 
of  a  natural  inability  to  be  established.  But  who  does  not 
see  that  I  have  an  equal  right  to  assume  the  meaning  of 
moral  inability  as  the  only  meaning  of  the  term,  and,  by  the 
power  of  reiterated  assertion,  to  beat  down  my  adversary,  as 
he  has  to  battle  me  with  unexplained  words,  taken  for 
granted,  by  force  of  mere  assertion ;  and  that  both  of  us,  in 
doing  so,  would  violate  the  laws  of  philology  and  connect  con- 
troversy ?  As  soon  as  the  meaning  of  the  texts  applied  to 
man  and  quoted  to  prove  his  natural  inability  are  explained, 
it  appears  that  they  respect  his  character  as  a  sinner,  and 
not  his  constitution  as  a  free  ao;ent,  and  are  nothins  to  the 
purpose  to  prove  what  they  are  quoted  to  prove.  If  they 
mean  a  moral  inability,  the  mere  voluntary  aversion  of  a  free 
agent  to  obey  the  Gospel,  then  they  do  not  mean  or  teach  the 
natural  impossibility  of  beUe\ing ;  and  the  moral  inability  of 
the  sinner  may  be  perfectly  consistent  with  the  natural  abihty 
of  the  free  agent. 

With  this  lamp  in  our  hand,  all  becomes  clear.  When- 
ever the  Bible  speaks  of  inabihty  in  moral  things,  it  speaks 
of  the  sin  of  the  will,  its  aversion  to  good.  Yet  where  hr.s 
Dr.  Wilson,  in  the  whole  course  of  his  argument  in  support 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  269 

of  his  charges  against  mc,  ever  once  defined  the  term  can- 
not !  Wliere  has  he  recognized  this  obvious  distinction,  and 
the  manner  of  its  application  '\  He  has  insisted  on  a  single 
meaning  of  the  term,  which  meaning  he  assumes,  and  then 
denies  all  right  of  explanation.  As  soon  as  the  word  is  ex- 
plained, he  is  gone.  These  words,  like  all  other  words,  are 
to  be  tried  by  the  principles  of  exposition,  by  the  established 
?/.s'?/.s^  loquindi^  and  not  by  their  sound  on  the  tympanum  of 
the  ear ;  or  else  Jesus  Christ  might  as  well  have  spoken 
Greek  to  men  who  understood  nothino;  but  Eno;lish.  Take  an 
illustration  on  this  subject :  Suppose  an  assault  was  commit- 
ted ;  the  case  is  carried  into  court,  where  the  assault  is  ad- 
mitted, and  the  only  question  arising  is  a  question  of  damages. 
A  witness  appears  and  is  asked,  "  Did  you  see  this  assault  7" 
^' Yes,  I  saw  A  strike  B."  "  How  hard  did  he  strike  him?" 
'•I  don't  know  :  I  can't  exactly  tell  hoio  hard ;  A  was  a  very 
nervous  man."  "  0  !  "  cries  the  lawyer  in  favor  of  A,  "  if 
he  was  a  very  nervous  man,  he  must  have  been  too  feeble  to 
hurt  him  much."  Another  witness  is  introduced  and  asked, 
"How  hard  did  A  strike  B7  "  "I  can't  exactly  tell,"  he  says. 
••  What  sort  of  a  man  w^as  A  ?"  "  0  !  he  was  a  very  stout, 
brawny  man ;  a  very  nervous,  athletic  man."  "  Then,"  says 
the  attorney  on  the  other  side,  ' '  if  he  was  a  nervous  man,  no 
doubt  he  must  have  hurt  my  chent  exceedingly,  and  he  is 
entitled  to  heavy  damages."  On  this  a  dispute  arises  as  to 
the  testimony,  and  it  turns  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  ner- 
vous. One  of  the  attorneys  brings  into  court  Webster's 
dictionary,  and  shows  that  7iervous  means  "of  weak  nerve, 
feeble: "  and  there  he  stops.  Would  this  settle  the  question? 
Would  this  determine  the  meaning  of  the  testimony  7  Just 
so  with  the  word  inabiliti/.  It  has  two  meanings,  according 
VOL.  in.  23* 


270  '  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

as  it  is  applied.     It  may  either  mean  a  total  want  of  power, 
or  a  total  want  of  inclination. 

4.  The  subject^  and  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  forbid 
the  construction  of  a  natural  impossibihtj,  as  relating  to  man 
in  the  case  of  duty ;  because  the  subject  is  admitted  to  be  a 
free  agent,  and  free  agency  is  kno^n  and  defined,  and  by  the 
Confession  itself  is  admitted  to  be,  the  capacity  of  choice,  with 
power  of  contrary  choice.  A  free  agent  to  whom  spiritual 
obedience  is  a  natural  impossibility,  is  a  contradiction.  By 
the  laws  of  exposition,  I  am  entitled  to  all  the  collateral  evi- 
dence which  can  be  thrown  upon  the  meaning  of  the  Confes- 
sion from  the  several  sources  of  expository  knowledge  already 
enumerated,  and  which  I  will  not  here  recapitulate.  Dr. 
Wilson  insists  that  man  is  able  to  do  nothing  ;  but  nothing 
is  a  slender  foundation  on  which  to  rest  the  justice  of  the 
Eternal  Throne,  in  condemning  meij  to  everlasting  punish- 
ment, and  feeble  indeed  would  be  God's  gripe  upon  the  con- 
science. But  it  will  be  easy  to  show  that  the  strongest 
passages  relied  on  to  prove  natural  inability  are  forbidden  to 
be  interpreted  in  that  sense  by  the  estabhshed  laws  of  expo- 
sition. For  example,  it  is  said,  John  6  :  44  :  "No  man  can 
come  unto  me,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me  draw 
him."  The  nature  of  the  inability  here  declared  is  indicated 
by  the  kind  of  drawing  which  is  to  overcome  it.  This  is 
taught  in  the  verse  immediately  following,  and  elsewhere  in 
the  Bible.  "It  is  written  in  the  prophets,  and  they  shall  be 
all  taught  of  God :  every  man,  therefore,  that  hath  heard 
and  hath  learned  of  the  Father  cometh  unto  me.i'  The 
drawing  of  the  Father,  then,  without  which  no  man  can  come, 
according  to  prophetic  exposition,  quoted  and  sanctioned  by 
our  Redeemer,  is  in  being  "  taught  of  God,"  in  hearing  and 


TRIAL    BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  271 

learning  of  the  Father ;  and  this  is  precisely  the  doctrine  of 
our  Confession.  ''  God  maketh  the  reading,  but  especially 
the  preaching  of  his  Word,  an  eflfectual  means  of  convincing 
and  converting  sinners."  "  I  drew  them  with  cords  of  a  man, 
with  bands  of  love."  This  is  the  drawing  ;  with  the  bands  of 
a  man,  not  by  the  attraction  of  gravity.  Suppose  the  planets 
should  stop  in  their  course,  would  God,  do  you  think,  attempt 
to  overcome  the  vis  inertice.  of  matter  by  the  "reading  and 
especially  the  preaching  of  his  Word  "  ?  Would  he  send  the 
ten  commandments  to  start  them?  or  would  he  draw  "  them 
with  cords  of  a  man,  and  with  bands  of  love,"  to  move  onward 
in  the  orbits  ?  Yet  the  Confession,  and  the  Catechism,  and 
the  Bible,  all  as  certainly  teach  that  the  impediment  to  be 
overcome  is  overcome  by  moral  means  :  by  the  truth,  by  the 
Word  of  God,  by  the  reading  and  especially  the  preaching  of 
his  Word,  made  effectual  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  cannot, 
therefore,  be  any  natural  inability ;  any  such  inability  as 
renders  believing  a  natural  impossibility,  which  is  removed  in 
regeneration.  But  it  is  said  "  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
against  God,"  and  that  this  is  an  involuntary  condition  of 
mind.  But  is  it  a  natural  impossibihty  for  any  enemy  to  be 
reconciled  to  him  ?  The  text  does  not  say  that  fallen  man 
cannot  be  reconciled  to  God ;  but  it  says  that  the  carnal  mind 
cannot  be  subject  to  the  law  :  "It  is  not  subject  to  the  law 
of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be."  Carnality  can  never  be  so 
modified  as  to  become  obedience.  Again,  the  "  natural  man 
recciveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  neither  can  he 
know  them,  because  they  arc  spiritually  discerned."  Does  this 
mean  that  an  unconverted  man  can  have  no  just  intellectual 
conceptions  of  the  Gospel,  of  truth  and  duty,  in  order  to  his 
obeying  it  ?  How,  then,  can  he  be  any  more  to  blame  than  the 
heathen,  who  have  never  heard  of  Christ  7     And  what  better 


272  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

condition  are  men  in,  mth  the  Bible  which  they  cannot 
understand,  than  the  heathen  are,  with  no  Bible  at  all  7  But 
if  by  receiving  and  knowing  be  meant  a  willing  reception 
and  an  experimental  knowledge,  which  is  a  common  use  of  the 
terms,  then  the  text  teaches  simply  that  until  the  heart  is 
changed  there  can  be  no  experimental  religion  in  the  soul ; 
that  a  holy  heart  is  indispensable,  not  to  intellectual  percep- 
tion, but  to  spiritual  discernment,  to  Christian  experience. 

5.  The  Bible  not  only  does  not  teach  the  natural  inability 
of  man  to  obey  the  Gospel,  but  it  teaches  directly  the  con- 
trary. The  moral  law  itself  bounds  the  requisition  of  love 
by  the  strength  of  the  subject.  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
Qod  —  with  what?  —  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy 
soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind ;  —  and  with  what  else  7  —  with 
all  thy  STRENGTH.  But,  if  heart  and  soul  and  mind  and 
strength  constitute  no  strength,  how  is  he  bound  by  such  a 
command  as  this  ?  In  the  same  manner,  constitutional  powers, 
bearing  such  a  relation  to  obedience  as  constitutes  obhgation, 
are  recognized  in  the  Bible.  See  Isaiah  5  :  1,  2,  3,  4.  Was 
there  nothing  in  the  soil  and  culture  of  this  vineyard  which 
rendered  fruit,  in  respect  to  the  soil,  a  natural  possibility? 
But  the  vineyard  was  the  house  of  Israel,  the  owner  was 
God,  and  the  fruit  demanded  was  evangelical  obedience ;  and 
God,  the  owner,  decided  that  what  he  had  done  rendered  obe- 
dience practicable  and  punishment  just.  He  calls  upon  the 
common  sense  and  common  justice  of  the  universe  to  judge 
between  him  and  his  vineyard.  He  asks  whether  he  had  not 
done  that  for  his  vineyard  which  laid  a  just  foundation  for  it 
to  bring  forth  good  instead  of  wild  grapes,  and  declares  that 
the  bringing  forth  wild  grapes  was  a  thing  enormous,  and 
goes  on  to  pronounce  judgment  upon  his  vineyard. 

So  in  the  parable  of  the  talents.     The  owner  committed  a 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  273 

certain  portion  of  his  money  to  every  man,  according  to  his 
several  ability.  These  servants,  again,  represent  the  Jewish 
nation.  The  talents  represent  Gospel  privileges;  the  im- 
provement to  be  made  believing,  and  the  misimprovement 
sloth  and  unbelief.  The  trust  was  graduated  in  proportion  to 
the  ability  of  each  man.  There  was  ability,  therefore,  and 
the  servant  who  improved  his  trust  received  a  reward.  But 
the  servant  who  made  excuses  pleaded  his  natural  inability, — 
'•  I  knew  that  thou  wert  a  hard  master,  reaping  where  thou 
hadst  not  sown,  and  gathering  where  thou  hadst  not  strewed 
[worse  than  the  task-masters  of  Egypt],  and  I  was  afraid.  I 
dared  not  undertake  to  do  anything  with  my  talent.  I 
thought  it  would  be  safest  to  hide  it,  and  run  no  risk."  But 
his  Lord  said  to  him,  ^'  Thou  wicked  and  slothful  servant,  thou 
knewest  that  I  was  a  tyrant,  demanding  the  improvement  of 
gifts  not  bestowed.  How  couldst  thou  suppose,  then,  that  I 
would  not  exact  the  improvement  of  what  was  given  ?  Why 
didst  thou  not  put  my  money  to  the  exchangers  7  and 
tlicn  I  should  have  received  my  own  with  usury.  Do  I 
demand  effects  without  causes  ?  Take  him  away ;  thrust  him 
into  outer  darkness ;  he  has  libelled  his  Maker,  he  has  slan- 
dered his  God." 

6.  The  broad  principle  is  laid  down  in  the  Bible  that  abil- 
ity is  the  ground  and  measure  of  obligation.  According  to 
that  which  a  man  hath,  and  not  according  to  that  Avhich  he 
hath  not ;  to  whom  much  is  given,  of  him  shall  much  be  re- 
quired, but  to  whom  little  is  given,  of  him  shall  little  be 
required. — is  the  language  of  the  equitable  Ruler  of  the 
world.  But,  if  ability  is  not  needful  to  obligation,  why  ob- 
serve this  rule  ?  —  why  not  reverse  it  ?  Why  not  require 
little  of  him  to  whom  much  is  given,  and  'much  from  him  to 
whom  little  is  given  7     Present  this  principle  to  any  man  but 


274  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

an  idiot,  and  see  what  lie  will  say  to  such  a  proceeding. 
There  is  not  a  human  being  whose  sense  of  justice  would  not 
revolt  from  it.  And  shall  man  be  more  just  than  God  ?  Nor 
is  the  principle  of  graduating  responsibility  by  ability  a  lim- 
ited rule  of  the  divine  government,  applicable  only  in  partic- 
ular cases  :  the  rule  is  general,  it  is  universal,  it  applies  to 
every  free  agent  in  the  universe. 

7.  The  implications  in  the  Bible  of  man's  ability,  as  a 
free  agent,  to  render  to  God  spiritual  obedience,  are  many 
and  irresistible. 

Deut.  30  :  15,  19.  — See,  I  have  set  before  thee  this  day  life  and  good, 
and  death  and  evil  ;  in  that  I  command  thee  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God. 
Therefore  choose  life,  that  both  thou  and  thy  seed  may  live. 

Ps.  81  :  10, 11,  12,  13.  —  Open  thy  mouth  wide,  and  I  will  fill  it.  But 
my  people  would  not  hearken  to  my  voice.  So  P  gave  them  up  to  their 
own  hearts'  lusts.     0,  that  my  people  had  hearkened  unto  me  ! 

Ezekiel  18  :  2.  —  They  said,  God  punishes  us  for  the  sins  of  our  fathers. 
But  God  replied  (verses  20,  30,  31,  32),  The  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity 
of  the  father.  Bepent,  and  turn  from  all  your  transgressions  and  make 
you  a  new  heart ;  for  why  will  ye  die,  0  house  of  Israel  ?  For  I  have  no 
pleasure  in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth.  Wherefore  turn  yourselves  and 
live  ye. 

Luke  13  :  34.  —  0,  Jerusalem,  &c.  &c.,  how  often  would  I  have 
gathered  thy  children  together  as  a  hen  doth  gather  her  brood  under  her 
wings,  and  ye  would  not ! 

Prov.  1  :  24,  25,  29,  —  Because  I  have  called  and  ye  refused,  &c.  &c., 
therefore  shall  they  eat  of  the  fruit  of  their  own  way,  and  be  filled  with 
their  own  devices. 

These,  and  innumerable  such  implications,  indicate  God's 
moral  government  of  mercy  over  a  world  of  rebel  free  agents, 
including  precepts  and  prohibitions,  and  rewards  and  punish- 
ments, and  exhortations  and  -warnings,  and  entreaties,  and 
even  regrets,  when  incorrigible  rebellion  renders  punishment 
just  and  indispensable. 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  275 

Suppose,  then,  all  those  thus  addressed  had  replied  :  "  We 
should  be  glad,  0  Lord,  to  love  and  obey  Thee,  if  we  could ; 
but  thou  knowcst  Ave  have  lost  all  power  and  ability,  of  every 
kind,  to  love  and  obey."  Would  the  Searcher  of  hearts  have 
said  to  them,  "  I  knoAV  that  you  can  do  nothing  of  that  kind 
yourselves  ;  but  you  can  pray  to  me  to  help  you,  and  you  can 
read  your  Bible  and  attend  public  worship,  and  commit  the 
Catechism,  and  lead  a  moral  life ;  for  as  I  live,  saith  the  Lord, 
I  have  no  pleasure  in  your  inability  ;  therefore  repent,  and 
turn  from  all  your  transgressions,  and  make  you  a  new  heart, 
for  why  will  ye  die,  0  house  of  Israel  "  ? 

But  does  God  call  men  to  turn,  when  a  natural  impossibil- 
ity lies  in  the  way?  Would  he  say  to  them,  ''  See,  I  have 
set  before  thee  this  day  life  and  good,  and  death  and  evil,  in 
that  I  command  thee  this  day  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God,  to 
walk  in  his  ways,  and  to  keep  his  commandments,  and  his 
statutes,  and  his  judgments,  that  thou  mayest  live  and  multi- 
ply. I  call  heaven  and  earth  to  record  this  day  against  you, 
that  I  have  set  before  you  life  and  death,  blessing  and  cursing ; 
therefore  choose  life,  that  both  thou  and  thy  seed  may  live ; 
that  thou  mayest  love  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  that  thou 
mayest  obey  his  voice,  and  that  thou  mayest  cleave  unto  him." 

If  it  be  said  that  men  are  free  to  evil  and  accountable  for 
loing  wrong,  I  answer,  if  God  commanded  men  to  sin,  that 
might  suffice ;  but,  if  he  commands  them  to  stop  sinning,  and 
they  have  no  free  agency  to  do  it,  and  it  is  a  natural  impossi- 
bility to  stop,  how  does  free  agency  to  do  what  is  forbidden 
create  obligation  to  abstain  and  do  what  is  commanded,  when 
they  have  no  power  ?  Besides,  could  they  sin  without  ability 
to  sin  ?  How,  then,  can  they  obey  without  abihty  to  obey  7 
And,  if  they  have  free  agency  to  obey,  that  is  just  what  I  am 
contending  for.     For  they  can  no  more  obey  without  natural 


276  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

power  than  they  can  sin  without  natural  power.  If  man  as  a 
free  agent  has  not  natural  power  to  obey,  then  commands, 
and  exhortations,  and  entreaties,  and  expostulations,  might  as 
well  be  addressed  to  men  without  the  five  senses,  commanding 
them,  on  pain  of  eternal  death,  to  see,  hear,  feel,  taste  and 
smell.  This  argument  was  used  by  Pelagius  and  Arminius, 
and,  in  the  forms  they  urged  it,  was  easily  answered ;  they 
brought  it  forward  to  prove  not  only  that  man  is  naturally 
able  to  obey  God,  but  to  prove  that  he  actually  does  obey  the 
Gospel  without  special  grace, —  that  his  will  is  under  no  bias 
from  the  fall,  and  that  his  moral  ability  is  so  unperverted 
that  it  is  sufficient,  without  regeneration,  to  do  all  that  God 
has  commanded.  Augustine  maintained  that  the  will  was 
entirely  struck  out  of  balance ;  Pelagius,  on  the  contrary, 
maintained  that  it  remained  in  delightful  equilibrium,  and, 
consequently,  that  no  grace  of  God  was  needed  to  determine 
it  to  a  right  choice,  insisting  that  dependence  on  grace  to 
change  the  will  was  inconsistent  with  commands  and  exhorta- 
tions, &c.  But  Augustine,  Luther,  Calvin,  and  all  the  Re- 
formers, fully  admit  the  ability  of  man  as  a  free  agent,  and 
deny  that  his  moral  inability  and  dependency  as  a  sinner 
supersede  obligation,  invitation,  and  command.  The  natural 
abihty  of  man  is  a  point  which  has  never  been  controverted 
by  the  Church  at  large,  and  generally  only  by  heretics.  The 
orthodox  portion  of  the  Church  of  God  never  has  questioned 
it,  and  has  denied  only  moral  ability,  that  is.  a  right  disposi- 
tion or  will,  in  opposition  to  the  Arminian  and  Pelagian 
heresies. 

The  Scriptures  an'd  our  Confession  both  teach,  that  God 
is  not  the  author  of  sin, —  that  he  neither  creates  it,  nor 
devises  plans  nor  adapts  means  to  break  the  force  of  his  own 
laws  and  administration,  so  as  purposely  to  prevent  obedience 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  277 

and  produce  sin,  as  the  natural  and  necessary  result  of  his 
own  power  and  agency.  You  may  search  the  word  and 
works  of  God  with  a  microscope,  and  you  cannot  find  any 
such  thing  as  a  plan  tending  to  prevent  obedience  and  to 
produce  sin.  You  may  light  up  ten  thousand  suns,  and 
search  every  cavern  and  deep  recess  of  nature,  and  you  can 
find  no  such  thing.  In  the  development  of  his  character, 
law,  gospel  and  providence,  he  has  produced  powerful  means 
of  drawing  his  subjects  to  obedience,  unobstructed  by  any 
counteracting  influences  designed  to  prevent  obedience  and 
produce  sin.  He  has  given  no  law  against  the  moral  laAV, 
and  affords  no  motive  to  disobediencCj  and  administers  no 
providence  to  defeat  the  administration  which  corroborates  the 
powers  of  law.  All  the  tendencies  of  his  government,  law, 
gospel,  and  providential  administration,  are  self-consistent 
and  in  unison.  God  tempteth  not  any  man,  neither  can  he 
be  tempted  of  evil.  The  whole  tendency  of  his  government, 
in  the  hands  of  the  Mediator,  is  to  lead  the  ruined  rebel  to 
break  off  his  sins  by  repentance,  and  not  to  induce  him  to 
persist  in  them.  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin.  It  wars 
against  the  whole  moral  influence  of  his  glorious  character, 
law,  gospel  and  government.  Nor  in  its  existence  in  fallen 
man  "is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creatures,  nor  is 
the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but 
rather  established." 

Of  course,  I  reject  all  theories  of  the  origin  or  continuance 
of  evil  which  make  God  the  author  of  sin.  —  The  Gnostic, 
that  he  placed  man  in  contact  with  sinful  matter,  to  be  una- 
voidably corrupted ;  or  the  Manichean,  that  it  is  a  part  of  the 
created  substance  of  the  soul ;  or  that  it  is  a  created  instinct 
of  our  nature,  perverting  the  will  by  the  power  of  a  constitu- 
tional necessity ;  or  that  all  agency  in  creatures  is  impossible, 

VOL.  III.  24 


278  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

and,  therefore,  that  God  creates  sinful  and  holy  exercises  by 
a  direct  efficiency,  in  such  quantities  and  proportions  as  please 
him.  I  hold,  with  the  Confession,  the  doctrine  of  free 
agency,  before  and  since  the  fall,  sufficient,'  while  upheld,  to 
make  holiness  obligatory,  and  account  for  sin  without  suppos- 
ing God  to  be  its  author,  in  a  way  which  would  make  him 
contradict  himself,  and  oppose  his  own  laws  and  government, 
and  do  violence  to  the  will  of  the  creatures,  and  destroy  the 
liberty  of  choice,  determining  it  to  evil  by'an  absolute  neces- 
sity of  nature.  To  the  system  of  free  agency,  then,  which 
teaches  that  to  fallen  man  ''  no  ability  of  any  kind"  exists  to 
obey  the  Gospel,  or  is  required  to  constitute  a  perfect  obliga- 
tion to  do  so,  and  a  just  desert  of  eternal  punishment  for  not 
obeying,  I  oppose  the  testimony  of  the  whole  Orthodox 
Church,  and  that  of  the  Bible. 

Finally.  The  Confession  of  Faith  teaches  plainly  and 
unanswerably  the  free  agency  and  natural  ability  of  man, 
as  capable  of  choice,  with  the  power  of  contrary  election. 

In  confirmation  of  this  position,  I  refer  to  the  Confession, 
chap.  IX.  sec.  1. 

God  hath  endued  the  will  of  man  with  that  natural  liberty,  that  it  is 
neither  forced,  nor  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  determined,  to  good 
or  evil. 

Now,  if  this  declaration  has  respect  to  man,  as  a  race, —  if 
the  term  man.  as  here  employed,  is  generic,  including  Adam 
and  all  his  posterity, —  then  the  passage  quoted  settles  the 
question.  The  whole  turns  on  what  is  the  meaning  of  the 
word  man.  Because,  if  it  means  man  as  fallen,  if  it  means 
Adam's  posterity,  my  opponent  is  gone, —  the  ground  is 
swept  from  under  him.  He  must  prove  that  man  means 
Adam,  and  Adam  only,  and  Adam  before  the  fall,  or  else  the 


TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  -27^ 

Confession  is  against  him.  Now,  what  is  the  subject  of  the 
chapter  to  which  this  section  belongs  ?  It  respects  free  will, 
—  that  is,  free  will  in  the  theological  sense  of  that  phrase,  as 
the  doctrine  was  discussed  between  Augustine  and  Pelagius, 
a  considerable  time  since  the  fall, —  and  has  respect  toman  in 
the  generic  sense.  That  this  is  so  is  plain,  from  the  scrip- 
tural references  quoted  in  support  of  the  positions  taken.  If 
the  declarations  of  the  chapter  had  respect  solely  to  Adam, 
the  scriptural  references  would  be  to  Adam ;  but  these 
references  do  not  refer  to  him,  but  do  refer  to  his  fallen  pos- 
terity. They  drive  the  nail  and  clinch  it.  See  what  they 
are: 

But  every  man  is  tempted  -when  he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own  lust  and 
enticed.  —  James  1  :  14. 

I  call  heaven  and  earth  to  record  this  day  against  you,  that  I  have  set 
before  you  life  and  death,  blessing  and  cursing  ;  therefore  choose  life,  that 
both  thou  and  thy  seed  may  live. —  Deut.  30  :  19. 

These  are  the  scriptural  proofs  selected  and  adduced  by 
the  Assembly  of  Divines,  as  exhibiting  the  Scripture  author- 
ity on  which  the  declarations  in  the  chapter  are  made  ;  and 
what  are  they  7     Listen  to  them  : 

God  hath  endued  the  will  of  man  with  that  natural  liberty,  that  it  is 
neither  forced,  nor  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  determined,  to  good 
or  evil.  —  Confess,  of  Faith,  ix.  1. 

If  this  means  Adam,  all  I  say  is,  that  they  use  very  bad 
grammar,  and  have  made  a  most  wonderful  mistake  in  the 
references  quoted.  To  say  that  the  will  of  Adam  before  the 
fall  is  neither  forced  nor  determined  by  necessity,  is  non- 
sense, and  makes  the  second  section  tautology. 


280  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

The  first,  if  it  refers  to  Adam  in  innocency,  says  lie  had 
natural  hberty  of  will,  and  was  not  forced  or  determined  by 
necessity  to  choose  good  or  evil;  and  the  second  section 
repeats  the  same  thing, —  that  man,  in  his  state  of  innocency, 
had  freedom  and  power  to  do  good  or  evil. 

I  take  the  question  as  settled,  then,  that  "man"  here 
means  man  as  a  race^  and  that  "  will "  here  means  the  will 
of  man  as  a  race;  and  it  is  what  I  hold,  and  what  all  the 
Church  hold ;  and  it  is  the  fair  meaning  of  the  Confession. 
What  follows  in  the  next  section,  with  respect  to  man  in  a 
state  of  innocency,  is  a  confii-mation  and  an  illustration  of  the 
doctrine  as  thus  explained. 

Man,  in  his  state  of  innocency,  had  freedom  and  power  to  ■will  and  to  do 
that  which  is  good  and  well  pleasing  to  God  ;  but  yet  mutably,  so  that  he 
might  fall  from  it  (Confess,  of  Faith,  ix.  2).  That  is,  his  free  agency 
included  the  natural  power  of  choosing  right  or  of  choosing  wrong. 

Adam  had  the  natural  ability  to  stand :  and  he  had  it  in  a 
state  of  balanced  power,  in  which  he  was  capable  of  choosing 
rig-ht  and  able  to  choose  wrono-. 

Then  comes  section  the  third,  which  contains  a  description 
of  the  change  induced  by  the  fall  ;  a  change  which 
respected  the  will  of  man,  not  his  constitutional  powers,  but 
their  voluntary  exercise. 

Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  — 

Lost !  —  what  ?  His  natural  ability  to  choose  right,  so  that 
he  is  now  forced  and  determined  by  an  absolute  necessity  to 
do  good  or  evil  ?  Not  a  word  of  it.  It  was  not  that ;  it  was 
something  else  he  lost ;  and  thereupon  turns  the  question 
between  us.     The  Confession  proceeds  : 

lozi  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual   good  accompanying  salva- 


TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  281 

Hon  ;  so,  as  a  natural  man,  being  altogether  averse  from  that  good,  and 
dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own  strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  pre- 
pare himself  thereunto. 

He  lost  "all  ability  of  will."  Does  this  mean  that,  in 
respect  to  the  power  of  choice,  he  fell  into  a  state  of  natural 
inability  ?  Not  at  all.  He  had  the  power  of  choice  as  much 
as  ever.  But  he  had  lost  all  moral  ability,  that  is,  all  inclin- 
ation to  choose  what  was  good.  His  will  was  altogether 
averse  from  it.  He  was  altogether  unwilling.  He  fell  into 
an  inability  of  will ;  that  is,  into  a  state  of  obstinate  unwil- 
lingness. This  is  the  common  use  of  terms  until  this  day. 
Moral  inability  means  not  impossibility,  but  it  means  unwil- 
•lingness.  Man  became  "dead."  But  how 7  Not  by  the 
annihilation  of  his  natural  powers,  not  dead  in  respect  to  the 
natural  liberty  of  his  will,  but  dead  in  sin ;  so  as  not  to  be 
able,  by  his  own  strength  (of  will),  to  convert  himself,  or  to 
prepare  himself  thereunto.  I  say  "Amen!"  this  is  my 
doctrine.  The  w^ord  "able,"  and  the  word  "strength,"  are 
both  employed  in  a  moral  sense,  and  in  a  moral  sense  only  ; 
and,  thus  interpreted,  the  Confession  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  itself 

The  fourth  section  of  this  chapter  is  a  corroboration  of  the 
same  position  : 

"When  God  converts  the  sinner,  and  translates  him  into  the  state  of  grace, 
he  freeth  him  from  his  natural  bondage  under  sin,  and  by  his  grace  alone 
enables  him  freely  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  spiritually  good  ;  yet  so 
as  that,  by  reason  of  his  remaining  corruption,  he  doth  not  perfectly  nor 
only  will  that  which  is  good,  but  doth  also  will  that  which  is  evil. 

Frees  him  from  what  7  From  his  free  agency  ?  from  the 
constitutional  powers  of  his  being  ?  No.  Frees  him  from 
his  bondage  under  sin  ;  that  is,  from  his  bias  to  evil,  from  his 

VOL.  III.  24* 


282  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

moral  inability.  And  how  is  lie  freed?  The  Confession 
says  it  is  by  grace.  Wonderful  grace  it  would  be  to  restore 
his  natural  powers !  One  would  think  this  was  more  like 
justice  than  grace.  But  it  is  argued  that  if  this  bondage 
means  mere  obstinacy  of  will,  man  would  not  need  divine 
aid.  Indeed,  so  far  is  this  from  being  true,  that  no  creature 
does  need  divine  aid  so  much  as  a  free  agent  obstinately  bent 
upon  evil.  My  children  were  free  agents,  but  they  needed 
aid,  to  secure  the  performance  of  such  duties  as  they  were 
naturally  able,  but  as  fallen  creatures  disinclined,  to  perform. 
None  possess  such  a  power  of  resistance  as  a  free  agent 
under  moral  inability  or  aversion  to  good.  It  is  a  bias  which 
he  himself  never  does  effectually  resist.  God  must  deliver 
him  ;  and  everything  short  of  divine  aid  is  short  of  his  neces- 
sity. Men  are  sometimes  fully  sensible  of  this.  I  have 
heard  of  a  man,  under  the  power  of  the  habit  of  intemperance, 
who  cried  out  to  his  friends,  ''Help  me  !  help  me  !  wake  me  up ! 
save  me,  or  I  fall !  "  The  love  of  liquor  had  not  destroyed  his 
natural  abihty.  But  he  felt  that  his  moral  ability  —  his  ability 
of  will  to  resist  temptation  —  was  gone.  The  distinction  is 
plain  and  easy ;  and  it  is  one  that  we  can  all  understand  in 
the  every-day  affairs  of  life.  If  we  see  our  friends  in  danger 
of  being  overcome  by  evil  habit,  we  brace  them  against  its 
power  ;  we  perceive  their  moral  inability,  and  we  bring  them 
all  the  aid  in  our  power.  The  phrase  "  to  incline  and 
enable"  is  just  as  consistent  with  amoral  inability  as  it  is 
with  a  natural.  Our  natural  bondage  is  that  into  which  we 
are  born  by  nature, —  our  constitutional  bias  to  evil,  called 
.original  sin.  And  it  is  grace,  and  grace  alone,  that  enables  a 
man  to  resist  and  overcome  it.  This  I  beheve  ;  this  I  hold  ; 
this  I  have  felt.  We  shall  be  inchned  to  good  alone  only 
when  we  reach  the  state  of  glory. 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  283 

This  reasoning  is  corroborated  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Con- 
fession in  respect  to  God's  decrees. 

God  from  all  eternity  did,  by  the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own 
will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  ;  yet  so  as 
thereby  neither  is  God  the  author  of  sm ,  nor  is  violence  offered  to  the  will 
of  the  creature,  nor  is  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken 
away,  but  rather  established. 

Here  are  two  points  of  doctrine  laid  down.  First,  that  by 
the  decrees  of  God  no  violence  is  done  to  the  will  of  the 
creature ;  its  natural  liberty  is  not  invaded  or  destroyed  by 
sin.  It  is  not  in  God's  decree  that  it  should  be  forced  or 
divested  of  its  natural  power,  but  the  contrary. 

There  is  nothing  in  God's  whole  plan  that  amounts  to  the 
destruction  of  the  natural  liberty  of  the  will.  Now,  if  I  can 
show  that,  on  the  contrary,  his  decrees  confirm  it,  why,  then 
I  carry  my  exposition.     But  what  says  the  chapter  ? 

God  from  all  eternity  did  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass. 

That  God  did,  in  some  sense,  ordain  the  fall,  and  all  its 
connections  and  consequences,  cannot,  then,  be  denied.  But 
how  were  these  ordained  ?     The  Confession  tells  us  how  : 

It  was,  "  so  that  no  violence  is  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creature,  nor  is 
the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather 
established." 

Here  it  is  disclosed  that  the  natural  liberty  of  the  will  is 
not  destroyed  by  the  fall,  but  rather  established ;  instead  of 
taking  a^vay  free  agency,  and  the  capacity  of  choice,  God 
decreed  to  establish  it.  Whatever  has  been  the  wreck  and 
ruin  produced  by  the  fall,  the  free  agency  originally  conferred 
upon  man  has  not  been  removed.     Therefore  it  was  that  I 


284  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

pressed  this  book  to  my  heart,  because  it  assures  me  that  the 
rio^hteous  Governor  of  the  world  has  done  no  violence  to  those 

o 

powers  and  faculties  of  man  which  are  essential  to  his  moral 
government. 

But  I  am  happy,  on  this  subject,  in  being  able  to  adduce 
an  authority  altogether  above  my  own.  What  did  the  Assem- 
bly of  Divines  mean  by  this  word  contingency  7  The  cele- 
brated Dr.  Twiss,  who  was  their  prolocutor  or  moderator,  must 
be  high  authority  on  that  question.     He  says : 

Whereas  we  see  some  things  come  to  pass  necessarily,  some  contin- 
gently, so  God  hath  ordained  ihat  all  things  shall  come  to  pass  ;  but 
necessary  things  necessarily,  and  contingent  things  contingently,  that  is, 
avoidably  and  with  a  possibility  of  not  coming  to  pass.  For  every  univer- 
sity scholar  knows  this  to  be  the  notion  of  contingency.  —  Chr.  Spec. ,  vol. 
VII.  No.  1,  p.  165. 

Dr.  Twiss  is  speaking  of  natural  and  moral  events, —  the 
only  events  which  exist  in  the  universe ;  and  he  says  that 
God  decreed  that  all  things  should  come  to  pass  ;  that  natural 
events  should  come  to  pass  necessarily ;  and  that  moral 
events,  which  are  acts  of  will,  and  which  he  calls  "  contingent 
things,"  shall  come  to  pass  contingently;  which  he  explains 
to  mean  avoidably,  and  with  a  natural  possibility  of  not  com- 
ing to  pass.  He  is  speaking  of  the  moral  world,  and  he  says 
that  in  the  natural  world  all  is  necessary  as  opposed  to 
choice,  but  that  in  the  moral  world  all  is  free  as  opposed  to 
coercion,  or  natural  necessity,  or  inability  of  choice ;  and  that 
every  act  of  will,  though  certain  in  respect  to  the  decree,  is 
yet  free  and  uncoerced  in  respect  to  the  manner  of  its  coming 
to  pass,  and  as  to  any  natural  necessity,  always  avoidable. — 
not  avoided, —  but,  according   to   the  very   nature    of  free 


TP.TAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  285 

ngcncy,  nlways  nvoitlablc,  in  accordance  ^vitll  the  language  of 
tlio  Confession,  ch.  IX.  sec.  1  [quoted  above]. 

jN'ow  ^ve  shall  show  how  God  executes  his  decrees;  and 
what  says  the  Confession  on  this  point?  (See  ch.  v. 
sec.  2.) 

Altliougli,  in  relation  to  the  foreknowledge  and  decree  of  God,  the  first 
cause,  all  things  come  to  pass  immutably  and  infallibly  [that  is,  with 
entire  certainty],  yet,  by  the  same  providence,  he  ordereth  them  to  fall 
out  according  to  the  nature  of  second  causes,  either  necessarily,  freely  or 
contingently  [that  is,  the  volitions  of  the  mind  come  to  pass  freely,  and, 
as  opposed  to  any  natural  necessity,  avoidably]. 

The  account  given  of  the  actual  effects  of  the  fall  is  a  still 
farther  confirmation  of  our  exposition.  —  Ch.  vi.  sec.  2. 

By  this  sin  they  fell  from  their  original  righteousness  and  communiou 
with  God,  and  so  became  dead  in  sin,  and  wholly  defiled  in  all  the  faculties 
and  parts  of  soul  and  body. 

Also  Shorter  Catechism,  Ques.  and  Ans.  17,  18  : 

Q.   Into  what  estate  did  the  fall  bring  mankind  ? 

^.   The  fall  brought  mankind  into  a  state  of  sin  and  misery. 

Q.  Wherein  consists  the  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell  ? 

Jl.  The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell  consists  in  the  guilt 
of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  original  righteousness,  and  the  corruption 
of  his  whole  nature,  which  is  commonly  called  Original  Sin,  together  with 
all  actual  transgressions  which  proceed  from  it. 

If  Dr.  Wilson's  position  is  true,  and  man  lost  the  natural 
power  of  right  choice,  this  answer  should  have  been  changed, 
and  we  should  have  been  told  that  the  fall  brought  man- 
kind into  a  state  of  natural  impotency.  But  it  says  no  such 
thing.  It  says  it  brought  him  into  a  state  of  sin.  What ! 
Can  a  man  sin  without  beino;  a  free  ajrent  ?     The  effects  here 


286  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

stated  are  the  loss  of  holiness  and  the  corruption  of  his  nature. 
But  surely  the  corruption  of  nature  is  not  the  annihilation  of 
nature ;  his  nature  must  still  exist,  in  order  to  be  corrupt. 
What,  then,  is  its  corruption  ?  It  is  death  in  sin ;  not  the 
death  of  its  natural  powers.  There  is  no  destruction  of  the 
agent.  But  there  is  a  perversion  of  those  powers  which  do 
constitute  his  agency.  So  much  for  the  testimony  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith. 

I  said  that  in  expounding  a  written  instrument  we  are 
always  to  consider  the  attributes  of  the  subject  concerning 
which  it  speaks :  that  its  language  is  to  be  expounded  in 
reference  to  the  nature  of  the  thing.  The  Confession  teaches 
that  man  was  endowed  with  a  natural  liberty  of  choice,  and 
has  suffered  no  perversion  but  that  which  consists  in  obstinate 
choice.  His  natural  liberty  remains,  but  in  regard  to  moral 
liberty  —  that  is,  an  unbiased  will  —  the  balance  is  wrong. 

Such  are  my  views  of  the  natural  ability  of  fallen  man,  and 
my  evidence  that  they  are  just. 

It  is  the  ability  of  an  intelligent,  accountable  agent  for  the 
exercise  of  his  own  powers  under  law,  and  in  the  view  of 
motives,  and  with  a  sense  of  obligation,  and  just  liabihty  to 
reward  and  punishment.  Nothing  short  of  this  distinguishes 
man  from  animals,  or  dust  and  ashes.  If  some  such  power 
be  not  real,  no  difference  can  be  pointed  out  between  free 
agency  and  fatality,  and  no  reason  assigned  why  God  should 
govern  man  by  moral  laws,  and  hold  him  accountable,  rather 
than  any  other  of  the  products  of  his  power  and  natural 
government.     I  say,  therefore,  with  Tertullian, 

A  law  would  not'  have  been  imposed  on  a  person  who  had  not  in  his 
power  the  obedience  due  to  the  law  ;  nor  again  would  transgression  have 
been  threatened  with  death,  if  the  contempt  also  of  the  law  were  not  placed 
to  the  account  of  man's  free  will. 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  287 

lie  who  should  be  found  to  be  good  or  bad  by  necessity,  and  not  volun- 
tarily, could  not  with  justice  receive  the  retribution  either  of  good  or  evil, 
—  p,  04. 

I  now  proceed  to  explain  the  doctrine  of  Man's  Moral 
Inability,  as  understood  in  every  age  by  the  Orthodox  Church, 
and  as  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Bible,  and 
as  I  hold  and  teach  it. 

I  am  aware  that  the  doctrine  of  a  moral  inability,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  natural  impossibility,  is  regarded  by  some  as 
a  fiction  of  the  imagination,  or  a  mere  metaphysical  subtilty, 
of  no  practical  utility  ;  while  all  its  tendencies  are  powerfully 
toward  the  territories  of  dangerous  error.  But  when  the 
nature  and  evidence  of  moral  inability  shall  have  been  stated, 
it  will  appear,  as  I  hope,  to  such  persons,  that  they  have  not, 
as  Edwards  says,  "well  considered  the  matter;"  and  that 
there  is  a  distinction  between  natural  impossibility  and  a  moral 
inability,  palpable  and  salutary,  without  denying  the  depend- 
ence of  man  for  effectual  calling  on  the  special  influence  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  or  implying  the  doctrine  of  self-regeneration 
and  salvation  without  an  atonement  by  the  deeds  of  the 
laAv. 

By  natural  inability  I  understand  the  fact  that  an  agent, 
though  ever  so  willing,  cannot  do  his  duty,  from  defect  of 
capacity  ;  and  by  moral  inability,  the  fact  that  his  capacity  as 
an  agent  renders  possible  and  makes  obligatory  the  perform- 
ance of  duty,  so  that  it  is  prevented  only  by  an  existing  con- 
trary choice,  an  obstinate  refusal,  including  in  the  term  not 
only  single  consecutive  volitions,  but  that  general  and  abiding 
decision  of  the  mind  for  God  or  against* him  —  which  consti- 
tutes holy  or  unholy  character,  and  includes  what  Edwards 
denominates  "  the  will  and  affections  of  the  soul,"  and  Tur- 
retin  "  a  habit  of  corrupt  will." 


288  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

This  voluntary  hindrance  of  spiritual  obedience  is  called 
inabihtj,  in  accordance,  as  I  shall  show,  with  the  uniform  use 
of  speech  in  all  the  languages  of  men,  applying  the  terms  can- 
not^ unable^  &c.,  to  one  who  is  prevented  from  doing  his  duty 
by  the  slightest  disinclination,  up  to  the  most  terrible  obsti- 
nacy of  will.  In  reference  to  spiritual  obedience,  it  is  called 
inability,  also,  I  have  no  doubt,  from  the  great  and  universal 
difficulty  experienced  by  man  in  changing  from  a  wrong  to  a 
right  decision  of  mind  in  respect  to  God  and  duty,  as  well  as 
from  the  absolute  certainty  that  without  the  Holy  Ghost  the 
obstinacy  of  the  human  will  will  produce  its  deadly  results 
with  a  certainty  equal  to  the  connection  between  natural 
causes  and  their  effect,  though  not  in  the  same  manner,  or 
with  the  same  results  as  to  accountability  and  desert  of  pun- 
ishment. It  is  called  in  the  Creeds  of  the  Eeformation,  and 
in  our  own  Confession,  inability  of  will,  because  spiritual 
obedience  is  prevented  only  by  the  perverse  action  of  the  will ; 
and  to  indicate  that  free  agency  and  natural  ability  never  avail 
in  fallen  man  to  overcome  the  bias  of  his  will  to  evil,  under 
the  combined  influence  of  original  and  actual  sin ;  that  with 
the  ability  to  choose  right,  resulting  from  free  agency  and 
creating  obligation,  he  actually  chooses  wrong,  and  only  wrong, 
until  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

It  is  called  a  moral  inability  also  in  the  language  of  Tur- 
retin. 

1.  Objectively,  because  it  has  respect  to  moral  duties.  2.  As  to  its 
origin,  because  it  is  brought  on  one's  self ;  which  arises  from  voluntary 
corruption,  voluntarily  acquired  by  the  sin  of  man.  3.  As  to  its  character 
(formaliter)y  because  that  is  voluntary  and  culpable  "which  is  founded  in 
a  habit  of  corrupt  will. 

By  all  this  I  understand  Turretin  to  mean,  that  the  moral 
inability  of  man  is  a  reality,  is  distinct  from  a  natural  im- 


TRIAL    BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  289 

possibility,  and  is  called  moral  because  it  respects  the  aver- 
sion of  mind  to  the  performance  of  spiritual  duties,  brought 
upon  the  race  by  the  voluntary  transgression  of  Adam,  and 
eventuating  in  a  habit  of  corrupt  will.  To  all  of  which  I 
subscribe. 

It  is  in  this  sense  that  the  term  moral  inability  is  used  by 
Edwards : 

We  are  said  to  be  naturally  unable  to  do  a  thing  which  we  cannot  do  if 
we  will,  because  what  is  commonly  called  nature  does  not  allow  of  it. 
Moral  inability  is  the  want  of  inclination  ;  or,  a  contrary  inclination. 

This  impotency  of  will  to  good,  according  to  the  Bible  and 
our  Confession,  and  the  received  doctrines  of  the  Church, 
includes  the  constitutional  bias  to  actual  sin  produced  in  all 
men  by  the  fall,  anterior  to  intelligent,  voluntary  action, 
which,  though  it  destroys  not  that  natural  liberty  with  which 
God  hath  endowed  the  will,  nor  forces  nor  determines  it  by 
any  necessity  of  nature  to  the  choice  of  evil  instead  of  good, 
does,  nevertheless,  evince  that  mankind  are,  as  Edwards  says, 
"  under  the  influence  of  a  prevailing,  effectual  tendency  to 
that  sin  and  wickedness  which  imply  their  utter  and  eternal 
ruin." 

To  this  bias  is  added,  in  ftillen  adult  man,  that  terrific  deci- 
sion of  the  mind  in  favor  of  the  world  and  against  God,  which 
never  changes  but  under  the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit  in 
our  eficctual  calling. 

To  which  may  be  added  the  formidable,  accumulating  in- 
fluence of  habit,  which,  though  it  forces  not  the  will,  or  de- 
termines its  perverse  obstinacy  by  any  necessity  of  nature, 
does  yet,  in  accordance  with  the  known  laws  of  perverted 
mind,  powerfully  corroborate  the  perverting  influences  of  both 
original  and  actual  sin,  by  impairing  the  moral  sensibilities  of 

VOL.  III.  25 


290  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

the  soul,  and  the  power  of  motive  to  good,  while  it  fearfully 
augments  the  temptations  to  evil,  and  facilitates  the  liability, 
and  diminishes  the  resistance  to  a  comphance. 

This  is  the  view  of  the  subject  which  is  recognized  in  our 
Confession,  and  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  held  forth  in  the 
creeds  and  standard  orthodox  works  of  every  age  as  the 
received  doctrine  of  the  Church. 

In  my  preaching,  I  have  not  been  accustomed  to  employ 
the  terms  natural  and  moral  inability,  because  they  are  the 
technical  terms  of  theological  controversy,  around  which  prej- 
udice has  gathered  odium  and  mistake.  But  in  the  present 
case  I  have  no  other  alternative,  because  it  is  on  these  tech- 
nical terms  that  the  whole  controversy  turns. 

I  say,  then,  that  our  Confession,  while  it  teaches  un- 
answerably the  free  agency  and  natural  ability  of  man  to 
choose  right  as  well  as  wrong,  teaches  with  equal  clearness  his 
moral  inability  as  consisting  in  a  settled  aversion  of  will  to  all 
spiritual  obedience,  until  called  efficaciously  by  the  Word  and 
Spirit  of  God. 

1.  There  is  no  necessity  for  interpreting  the  terms  of  the 
Confession,  as  applied  to  fallen  man,  to  mean  the  natural 
impossibihty  of  obedience. 

The  various  phrases  expressing  inability  are  by  common 
use  in  all  languages  applied  to  express  whatever  is  prevented 
voluntarily,  either  by  slight  disinclination,  or  the  most  pow- 
erful, immutable  decision  of  the  mind.  We  use  the  terms 
cannot^  unable,  &c.,  continually  to  express  whatever  for  the 
slightest  reasons  we  do  not  find  it  convenient  or  feel  inclined  to 
do,  and  where  no  natural  impossibility  exists,  or  is  thought  of 
As  there  is,  therefore,  no  necessity  to  interpret  the  terms 
inability  and  unable,  when  applied  to  fallen  man,  as  teaching 
the  natural  impossibility  of  obedience,  so  also,  from  the  estab- 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  291 

lished  use  of  the  terms  in  all  languages,  there  is  no  authority 
for  doing  it. 

The  decision  and  permanence  of  sinful  preference  affords 
no  evidence  of  its  natural  and  unavoidable  necessity. 

Edwards  has  shown  that  certainty  and  uniformity  of  right 
or  wrong  action  does  not  decide  the  manner  of  it,  as  being 
voluntary  or  coerced. 

lie  shows,  in  accordance  with  our  Confession,  that  God  is 
free  in  his  decrees  and  their  execution,  as  opposed  to  the 
coercion  of  fate  ;  and  that  Christ,  though  his  character  and 
life  were  foretold  and  certain,  and  he  went  as  it  was  written 
of  him,  acted  nevertheless  with  entire  and  uncoerced  volun- 
tariness. The  same  principle  holds  good  in  the  case  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar and  Judas,  and  sinners  given  up  of  God.  Though 
their  conduct  may  be  certain  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  not 
certain  by  a  coerced  necessity,  but  is  in  the  highest  sense  free 
and  accountable ;  and  such  throughout  are  the  implications  of 
the  Confession  and  the  Bible.  Because  the  moral  inability  of 
man,  therefore,  is  as  immutable  to  all  motive  and  human 
effort  as  the  effects  of  natural  causes,  it  does  not  follow  that  it 
is  made  certain  and  immutable  by  a  natural  necessity.  ^ 

The  doctrine  of  the  moral  impotency  of  man  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  any  of  the  other  doctrines  of  the  Bible. 

It  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  our  entire  and 
absolute  dependence  for  regeneration  on  the  special  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  for,  while  it  includes  a  natural  ability  of 
obedience,  as  the  ground  of  obligation,  it  teaches  the  certainty 
of  its  obstinate  perversion,  creating,  in  point  of  fact,  a  necessity 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  renew  as  real  and  as  great  as  if  the 
impediment  were  a  natural  impossibility.  It  no  more  implies 
self-regeneration,  than  if  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  in  subduing 
the  will,  consisted  in  creating  new  faculties;  the  influence  of 


292  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

the  Spirit  to  make  man  willing  being  just  as  indispensable  to 
his  salvation,  as  if  it  were  indispensable  to  make  him  naturally 
able.  Nor  does  that  ability  to  obey,  whose  exercise  is  pre- 
vented by  choice,  imply  that  it  is  an  easy  matter  for  man  to 
repent  and  turn  to  God,  in  and  of  himself;  for  everything 
which  is  possible  as  a  matter  of  duty  is  not  therefore  easy.  I 
agree  therefore  with  Turretin,  ''  that  man,  laboring  under  such 
an  inabihty,  is  falsely  said  to  be  able,  if  he  wishes," — im- 
plying that  a  sinner's  wishes  may  change  a  heart  fully  set  on 
evil.  "  For  though  the  phrase  may  to  some  extent  be  tolerated, 
understood  concerning  the  natural  poAver  of  willing,  which,  in 
whatever  condition  we  may  be,  is  never  taken  away  from  us, 
yet  it  cannot  be  admitted  when  we  speak  of  the  moral  dispo- 
sition of  the  will  to  good,  not  only  to  willing,  but  to  willing 
rightly."  For,  though  in  respect  to  the  possibihty  and  cor- 
responding obligation  there  can  be  no  excuse,  nevertheless,  in 
respect  to  the  difficulty,  nothing  which  the  mind  can  lawfully 
be  commanded  to  do  can  be  more  difficult.  It  is  difficult  to 
resist  the  original  bias  of  the  mind  to  actual  sin  ;  difficult  to 
relinquish  the  chief  good  located  on  earth,  and  set  our  affec- 
tions on  things  above ;  and  difficult  to  reverse  the  long-accu- 
mulating tendency  of  the  habitual  indulgence  of  our  evil  way. 
The  Bible,  therefore,  represents  it  as,  though  a  reasonable,  yet 
a  difficult  thing  for  a  lost  sinner  to  save  himself:  so  difficult 
that  none  do  it,  and  that  God  in  doing  it  makes  glorious  dis- 
plays both  of  power  and  grace,  and  every  sinner  and  every 
saint,  in  working  out  his  salvation,  finds  the  scriptural  repre- 
sentation true.  The  inattentive  find  it  difficult  to  resolve 
upon  immediate  attention,  and  difficult  to  fix  their  attention 
when  they  have  done  it.  The  stupid  find  it  difficult  to  awaken 
themselves  to  feel  and  realize  anything  :  and  the  awakened 
find  it  difficult  to  see  and  feel  their  sins,  and  the  great  evil  of 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  293 

sin  ;  and,  when  convinced  of  sin,  difficult  to  repent  and  come 
to  Christ.  And  when  the  sinner  is  converted,  it  is  so  difficult 
to  maintain  a  spiritual  frame  and  holy  resolutions,  and  watch- 
fulness and  prayer  and  perseverance,  that,  for  all  that  is 
past,  and  all  that  is  to  come,  he  says,  ''By  the  grace  of  God, 
I  am  what  I  am." 

The  terms  of  the  Confession  preclude  the  interpretation  of 
a  natural  impossibility  as  their  only  meaning,  and  cannot  be 
so  interpreted  without  making  the  Confession  contradict  itself. 

According  to  a  well-established  rule  of  interpretation,  no 
instrument  is  to  be  so  explained  as  to  make  it  contradict  itself 
without  necessity,  and  when  it  is  just  as  easy  to  harmonize  all 
its  parts  by  adopting  a  different  interpretation.  Now,  if  I 
have  not  proved  that  the  Confession,  as  I  interpret  it,  is 
sustained  by  other  collateral  arguments,  in  addition  to  that 
which  I  have  drawn  from  the  Bible,  then  I  shall  despair  of 
ever  successfully  expounding  a  document  in  the  world.  I  never 
have  seen  so  much  light  thrown  on  any  one  point  of  expo- 
sition before.  Does  not  the  Confession  speak  of  an  inability 
other  than  a  natural  one  ?  Does  it  not  teach  expressly  ' '  the 
natural  liberty  of  the  will ' '  in  fallen  man  to  choose  good  or 
evil,  uncoerced  by  fate  or  necessity?  And,  after  all,  is  it  a 
natural  liberty  that  means  nothing,  and  can  do  nothing? 
Does  "inability  of  will"  mean  a  natural  impossibihty  of 
exercising  that  "  natural  liberty  of  the  will"  in  the  choice  of 
good ;  and  that  it  is  coerced  by  a  natural  necessity  to  the 
preference  of  evil?  Does  the  Confession  contradict  itself? 
We  are  not  at  liberty,  then,  to  make  it  in  one  set  of  terms 
deny  an  ability  which  it  has  asserted  in  another.  And  when 
it  declares  in  appropriate  phraseology  the  natural  liberty  of 
the  will,  it  cannot  mean  to  contradict,  in  its  account  of  moral 
impotency,  what  it  had  before  asserted  with  respect  to  its  abil- 

VOL.  ITT.  25* 


294  VIEWS    OF  THEOLOGY. 

ity  to  choose,  as  opposed  to  fate.  I  may  be  able  in  one  sense, 
and  unable  in  another.  The  Confession,  in  fact,  interprets 
itself  (And  this,  I  suppose,  is  what  Dr.  Wilson  means 
when  he  says  we  must  receive  the  language  of  the  Confession 
without  any  explanation.)  I  agree  with  him.  that  on  many 
points  it  needs  no  explanation.  It  guards  against  its  own 
perversion,  and  its  language  is  such  as  I  should  think  it 
almost  impossible  to  misunderstand. 

Let  us  see  what  is  the  language  which  it  holds  in  chap.  vi. 
sec.  4  : 

From  this  original  corruption,  wliereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed,  dis- 
abled, and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do 
proceed  all  actual  transgressions. 

Here  is  active  aversion,  not  fatal  necessity.  The  man  is 
indisposed ;  he  is  disabled  by  being  indisposed.  But  it  has 
been  said  that  if  a  man  needs  help  it  must  be  a  natural 
inability  under  which  he  lies.  This  I  deny.  A  man  who 
lies  under  a  moral  inability  needs  aid  as  really  as  if  he  were 
naturally  unable ;  and  the  aid  he  needs  is  such  as  God  alone 
can  bring  him.  What  Christian  does  not  pray  that  God 
would  help  him  ?  But  does  he  mean  that  he  has  no  strength 
of  any  sort  ?  Not  at  all.  He  is  afraid  to  trust  his  own 
heart.  He  prays  for  moral  aid,  for  moral  ability,  for  strength 
of  purpose.  Surely,  we  are  all  agreed  in  this.  We  believe 
alike,  for  we  pray  alike.  New  School  and  Old  School  all 
confess,  when  they  get  before  God,  their  impotency  of  will  to 
good,  and  pray  for  help  to  will  and  to  do.  I  have  put  off  my 
coat, —  how  shall  I  put  it  on  ?  We  feel  this  impotency  ;  an^ 
what  we  feel  God  sees;  and  that  which  he  sees  he  has 
testified. 

Chapter  ix.  on  Free  Will : 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  295 

Man,  by  liis  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to 
any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation  ;  so  as  a  natural  man,  being 
altogether  averse  from  that  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able  by  his  own 
strength  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereunto. 

When  it  says  that  man  has  lost  all  ability  of  "will,  it  does 
not  mean  that  he  has  lost  all  free  agency.  It  does  not  mean, 
that  he  is  not  able  as  a  free  agent,  and  bound  to  do  that 
-which  is  right,  but  that  he  has  lost  all  rvlll  to  do  it.  My 
soul  !  do  I  not  believe  this  ?  Did  I  not  feel  it  when  God 
convinced  me  of  sin  1  Full  well  did  I  feel  it.  Did  I  not  fall 
at  the  footstool  and  tell  the  Lord  that  I  was  gone,  that  I  was 
ruined  and  helpless,  and  never  should  come  back  to  him, 
unless  he  put  forth  his  hand  to  deliver  me  ?  If,  I  ever 
preached  any  truth  to  dying  men  with  all  my  heart  and  with 
all  my  soul,  it  is  the  truth  of  man's  total  depravity  and 
inability ;  that  his  condition  is  desperate,  and  never  will  he 
turn  and  live  unless  God  shall  look  down  from  heaven  and 
have  mercy  upon  him.  This  is  my  doctrine ;  and  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Confession,  which  says,  we  are  averse  from  all 
good.  This  language  suits  me.  There  is  no  catch  in  this, 
no  quibble ;  I  mean  what  I  say  ;  I  fully  and  heartily  believe 
that  man  is  utterly  averse  to  all  good ;  that  he  is  dead ;  dead 
in  law  and  dead  in  sin, —  under  the  curse  of  God,  and  so  will 
ever  remain,  until  God  quickens  him  by  his  Spirit  and  grace. 

But  let  us  see  what  the  Confession  says  in  sec.  iv.  chap.  9 : 

When  God  converts  a  sinner,  and  translates  him  into  the  state  of  grace, 
he  freeth  him  from  his  natural  bondage  nnder  sin,  and  by  his  grace  alone 
enables  him  freely  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  spiritually  good  ;  yet  so 
as  that  by  reason  of  his  remaining  corruption  he  doth  not  perfectly  nor 
only  will  that  which  is  good,  but  doth  also  will  that  which  is  evil. 

"  Enable"  here  does  not  imply  that  there  is  any  natural 
inabilitv.     It  means,  inclines  him  to  will.     The  Confession  is 


296  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

orthodox ;  it  says  that  no  mere  man  is  able,  without  divine 
aid,  to  keep  God's  commandments.  That  is  my  faith.  I 
admit,  however,  that  this  was  the  spot  at  which  I  once  stum- 
bled, when,  as  I  said,  I  was  unable  fully  to  embrace  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  I  saw  a  difficulty  here.  I  believed  the 
Confession  to  mean  just  as  Dr.  Wilson  now  insists  that  it 
does  mean  ;  and  in  that  sense  I  never  could  receive  it.  But 
on  reflection,  and  with  those  collateral  lights  which  I  have 
mentioned.  I  now  understand  it  to  speak  the  very  truth,  and 
I  embrace  it  accordingly.  I  believe  in  the  moral  inability 
which  it  here  declares ;  and  I  believe  that  moral  inability  to 
obey  the  law  perfectly  will  continue  until  the  Christian 
reaches  his  home  in  heaven. 

But  now  let  us  hear  what  the  Confession  says  upon 
effectual  calling.     I  quote  from  chap.  x.  sec.  1  ! 

All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those  only,  he  is 
pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  accepted  time,  effectually  to  call  by  his  Word 
and  Spirit  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death  in  which  they  are  by  nature, 
to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ  ;  enlightening  their  minds  spiritu- 
ally and  savingly  to  understand  the  things  of  God  ;  taking  away  their 
heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  an  heart  of  flesh  ;  renewing  their 
wills,  and  by  his  almighty  power  determining  them  to  that  which  is  good  ; 
and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ ;  yet  so  as  they  come  most 
freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace. 

This  enlightening  I  hold  to  be  a  divine  illumination,  and 
such  as  the  Spirit  of  God  alone  can  give.  The  phrase  ' '  heart 
of  stone,"  which  is  employed  in  one  of  the  texts  cited  as 
proof,  is  a  metaphor;  and  so  is  the  "heart  of  flesh;"  and 
this,  I  believe,  is  the  only  passage  in  the  whole  Bible  where 
the  term  "  flesh  "  is  employed  to  signify  anything  good.  A 
heart  of  flesh  manifestly  means  tenderness,  susceptibility, — 
in  other  words,  a  willing  heart.     Renewing  the  ''will,"  that 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  297 

is.  turning  the  will  into  a  new  direction.  It  is  God  who  turns 
it.  The  sinner  left  to  himself  never  will  turn.  But  in  con- 
version God  does  not  make  a  free  agent.  He  turns  a  free 
agent.  I  am  perfectly  aware  that  some  very  good  men  sup- 
pose and  assert  that  the  men  of  the  new  school  (though  that, 
by  the  by,  is  one  of  the  most  undefined  of  all  designations ; 
the  term  is  like  fog, —  it  has  no  substance  and  no  definite  limits, 
but  floats  about  in  a  sort  of  palpable  obscure)  hold  to  self- 
regeneration,  and  that  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not 
necessary  in  turning  a  sinner  from  darkness  to  light.  No 
man  ever  heard  me  teach  such  a  doctrine.  I  have  taught 
directly  the  reverse,  and  have  put  the  doctrine  of  man's  abso- 
lute dependence  into  as  strong  terms  as  I  knew  how  to 
employ.  If  there  are  any  stronger,  I  shall  be  glad  to  get 
hold  of  them.  All  who  are  in  the  habit  of  hearing  me  know 
perfectly  that  the  total  depravity  of  man,  and  his  dependence 
on  the  power  and  help  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  has  been  the  great 
sulyect  of  all  my  preaching ;  and,  as  I  well  know,  has  been, 
under  God,  the  power  of  my  preaching.  I  think,  and  always 
have  thought,  that  the  display  of  divine  Omnipotence  in  con- 
verting rebel  minds  is  greater  by  far  than  any  exhibition  of  it 
which  ever  has  been  made  in  the  material  world.  And  for  an 
obvious  reason, —  because  mind  has  more  power  of  resistance 
than  matter.  Some  men  seem  to  think,  that  if  God  does  a 
thing  by  instrumentality,  no  opportunity  is  left  for  God  to 
show  his  own  great  power.  I  think  fiir  otherwise.  To  me 
the  truth  seems  weak  enough  in  itself  to  leave  ample  space  for 
the  display  of  Omnipotence  in  making  it  efiectual.  I  think 
that  the  act  of  God  in  regeneration  is  the  most  stupendous 
manifestation  of  omnipotent  energy  that  has  ever  been  made 
by  the  Almighty.  Nor  do  I  ever  expect  to  see  anything  in 
God's  works  that  will  rival  the  solemn  majesty  of  that  great- 


298  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

est  of  all  his  operations,  "whicli,  silent  as  the  spheres,  moves 
on  in  its  resistless  strength,  making  the  hearts  of  rebels  yield 
before  it. 

The  next  point  in  the  confirmation  of  my  exposition  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Confession,  touching  the  moral  impotency  of 
man,  is  to  show  that  what  it  affirms  on  that  subject  has  been 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  God  in  all  ages.  And  I  shall 
now  attempt  to  show  that  the  fathers,  while  they  held  free 
will,  in  opposition  to  necessity  and  blind  fate,  nevertheless 
taught  the  moral  inability  of  man,  and  his  dependence  on  the 
Holy  Spirit,  just  as  I  teach  it.  The  first  authority  I  shall 
produce  on  this  point  is  that  of  Clement  of  Alexandria : 

Since  some  men  are  -without  faith,  and  others  contentious,  all  do  not 
obtain  the  perfection  of  good.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  obtain  it  without  our 
own  exertion.  The  whole,  however,  does  not  depend  upon  our  own  will  ; 
for  instance,  our  future  destiny  ;  for  we  are  saved  by  grace,  —  not,  indeed, 
without  good  works.  —  ScotVs  Tomline,  vol.  it.  p.  56. 

Clement  teaches,  in  this  passage,  man's  natural  ability 
and  his  moral  inability,  with  equal  clearness. 

Origen.  — The  virtue  of  a  rational  creature  is  mixed,  arising  from  his 
own  free  will,  and  the  divine  power  conspiring  with  him  who  chooses  that 
which  is  good.  But  there  is  need  of  our  own  free  will,  and  of  divine  coop- 
eration, which  does  not  depend  upon  our  will,  not  only  to  become  good  and 
virtuous,  but  also  after  we  become  so,  that  we  may  persevere  in  virtue.  — 
p.  82. 

I  quoted  him  before,  and  showed  that  he  was  strong  on  the 
doctrine  of  free  will,  as  opposed  to  fate.  What  I  have  now 
quoted  may  be  Considered  as  a  good  commentary  upon  the 
text,  ' '  It  is  God  that  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do 
of  his  good  pleasure." 

Geegory  Nazianzen.  —  A  right  will  stands  in  need  of  assistance  from 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  299 

God  ;  or  rather  the  very  desire  of  what  is  right  is  something  divine,  and 
the  gift  of  the  mercy  of  God.  For  we  have  need  both  of  power  over  our- 
selves and  of  salvation  from  God.  Therefore,  says  he,  it  is  not  of  him 
that  willeth,  —  that  is,  not  of  him  only  that  willeth,  — nor  only  of  him  that 
runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy.  Since  the  will  itself  is  from 
God,  he  with  I'cason  attributes  everything  to  God.  However  much  you 
run,  however  much  you  contend,  you  stand  in  need  of  him  who  gives  the 
crown. 

Gregory  says  that  God  is  the  author  of  faith  —  that  he  is 
the  beginning  of  good  in  the  soul ;  yet  he  is  equally  explicit 
on  the  doctrine  of  free  >vill  as  opposed  to  fatalism.  He  holds 
that  man  has  need  of  all  that  free  agency  can  do,  and  all  that 
grace  performs  beside. 

Jerome. — For  the  freedom  of  the  will  is  so  to  be  reserved  that  the 
grace  of  the  giver  may  excel  in  all  things,  according  to  the  saying  of  the 
prophet.  Except  the  Lord  build  the  house,  their  labor  is  but  lost  that  build 
it.  Except  the  Lord  keep  the  city,  the  watchman  waketh  but  in  vain.  It 
is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  show- 
eth mercy.  —  p.  IIG. 

He  declares,  then,  that  though  man  is  a  free  agent,  yet 
regeneration  is  not  the  effect  alone  of  his  agency,  but  also  of 
God's  free  grace ;  as  the  preservation  of  a  city  is  not  the 
result  of  the  watchman's  care  alone,  but  of  God's  unsleeping 
providence.  Unless  the  Lord  keep  the  city,  the  -svatchman 
■waketh  but  in  vain. 

TuEOBORET.  —  Neither  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  is  sufficient  for  those 'who 
have  umvillingness ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  can  willingness,  without 
this  grace,  collect  the  riches  of  virtue.  —  p.  290. 

Here  we  see,  that  while  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  does  not 
supersede  the  necessity  of  earnest  attention  and  striving  on 
the  part  of  man,  yet  that  no  strivings  of  man  will  ever  issue 
in  a  saving  result,  without  Almighty  grace.     And  grace  is 


300  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

not  to  be  expected  while  a  man  wilfully  indulges  in  sloth  and 
sleep,  and  puts  forth  no  effort  for  his  own  deliverance. 

But,  before  adducing  quotations  further,  I  would  remark  : 

1.  That  every  one  of  these  confessions  recognizes  the  Hb- 
erty  of  the  will,  as  free  from  coercion. 

2.  They  all  uniformly  ascribe  its  perverse  action  to  the 
effect  of  the  fall,  in  biasings  yet  not  in  coercing,  the  will. 

3.  They  all  teach  expressly  that  the  bondage  is  the  influ- 
ence of  this  evil  bias,  and  not  a  natural  necessity  of  sinning ; 
and,  taken  together,  they  make  out  a  clear  and  consistent 
account  of  the  natural  ability  of  man  as  a  free  agent,  and  of 
his  moral  inability  as  a  si?ine?',  by  reason  of  the  bias  of 
his  will,  as  occasioned  by  the  fall.  If  you  shut  your  eyes 
and  try  their  meaning  only  by  your  ear,  you  will  hear  it 
abundantly  asserted  that  man  hath  no  liberty  at  all  to  desire 
good,  and  can  of  himself  do  nothing;  but  if  you  compare 
their  own  language  with  itself,  you  will  perceive  that  they 
insist  on  the  natural  liberty  of  the  will,  which  means  natural 
ability,  and  teach  only  the  impotence  which  results  from  the 
will  itself,  as  biased  and  perverted  by  the  fall,  and  that  the 
distinction  of  man's  natural  ability  as  a  free  agent,  and  his 
impotency  through  the  perversity  of  his  will,  runs  through 
all  the  creeds,  and  is  as  plainly  recognized  in  them  as  it  is  in 
our  own  Confession.  It  is  this  habit  of  interpreting  by  sound 
which  demands  a  running  exposition,  or  I  should  need  to  say 
nothing  in  exposition  of  the  quotations  from  the  former  of 
the  creeds. 

HARMONY  OF  THE   PROTESTANT   CONFESSIONS. 

The  doctrines  of  the  early  Reformers  in  Europe  were  misun- 
derstood by  the  Catholics,  against  whom  they  contended,  who 
maintained  that  they  were  all  a  set  of  schismatics ;   that  they 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  801 

were  perpetually  jangling  among  each  other,  so  that  no  two 
of  them  could  agree ;  and  on  this  alleged  fact  they  strength- 
ened the  great  argument  of  their  church  as  to  the  necessity 
of  having  some  head  on  earth  to  the  visible  church,  whose 
decisions  might  settle  controversies,  and  give  uniformity  to  the 
faith.  To  meet  this  argument  and  repel  it,  the  Reformers 
got  up  this  book,  which  is  entitled  "The  Harmony  of  the 
Confessions,"  the  design  of  which  was  to  show,  by  collating 
the  Confessions  of  diiferent  evangelical  churches,  that  the 
representation  of  their  enemies  was  false,  and  that  in  all 
fundamental  points  of  faith  they  were  fully  agreed. 

From  this  book  I  am  about  to  show  what  the  Protestant 
churches,  just  come  out  of  the  fiery  furnace  of  papal  persecu- 
tion, held  on  the  subject  of  the  moral  inahiUty  of  man.  I 
have  already  shown  what  was  the  opinion  of,  the  fathers.  ] 
shall  now  show  that  of  the  Reformers.  And  I  begin  with 
the  Confession  of  Helvetia  : 

Confession  op  Helvetia.  —  And  we  take  sin  to  be  that  natural  corrup- 
tion of  man,  derived  or  spread  from  those  our  first  parents  unto  us  all, 
through  Avhich  "we,  being  drowned  in  evil  concupiscences,  and  clean 
turned  away  all  from  God,  hut  prone  to  all  evil,  full  of  loickcdness,  dis- 
trust, contempt,  and  hatred  of  God,  can  do  no  good  to  ourselves,  —  no, 
not  so  much  as  think  of  any.  —  p.  58. 

Here  we  see  that  man's  inability  does  not  consist  in  any 
want  of  understanding  or  conscience,  or  any  other  attribute 
or  power  of  a  free  agent,  but  that  it  is  the  effect  of  that  which 
is  moral  and  voluntary ;  that  it  arises  from  the  evil  concupis- 
cence of  a  corrupt  nature,  the  wilful  unbelief  of  a  wicked 
heart.  Men  cannot  do  what  is  good.  Why  7  Because  they 
have  a  moral  inability  to  do  it.  Who  can  bring  a  clean 
thing  out  of  an  unclean  7     Again  : 

VOL.  III.  2G 


302  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

We  are  to  consider  -what  man  was  after  his  fall.  His  understanding, 
indeed,  was  not  taken  from  him  ;  neither  was  he  deprived  of  will,  and  alto- 
gether changed  into  a  stone  or  stock.  Nevertheless,  these  things  are  so 
altered  in  man,  that  they  are  not  able  to  do  now  that  which  they  could  do 
before  his  fall.  For  his  understanding  is  darkened,  and  his  will,  which 
before  was  free,  is  now  becoming  a  servile  will :  for  it  serveth  sin,  not 
nilling,  but  willing  ;  for  it  is  called  a  will  and  not  a  nUling.  Therefore, 
as  touching  evil  or  sin,  man  does  evil,  not  compelled  either  by  God  or  the 
devil,  but  of  his  own  accord  ;  and  in  this  respect  he  hath  a  most  free  will. 
—  p.  60. 

The  fall  is  here  said  not  to  have  deprived  man  of  free 
agency,  not  to  have  turned  him  into  a  stock  or  a  stone ;  but 
that  his  free  agency,  as  it  did  not  suffice  to  keep  him  from 
sinning,  does  not  suffice  to  raise  him  from  the  ruins  of  the 
fall.     Again,  let  us  listen  to  the  same  Confession  : 

The  regenerate,  in  the  choice  and  working  of  that  which  is  good,  do  not 
only  work  passively,  but  actively.  For  they  are  moved  of  God,  that  them- 
selves may  do  that  which  they  do.  And  Augustine  doth  truly  allege  that 
saying,  that  God  is  said  to  be  our  helper.  For  no  man  can  be  helped, 
but  he  that  doth  somewhat.  The  jNIanichees  did  bereave  man  of  all  action, 
and  made  him  like  a  stone  and  a  block.  —  p.  62. 

Here  we  find  that  no  man  is  helped  by  grace  as  a  mere 
passive,  impotent  machine ;  that  he  acts  in  working  out  his 
salvation ;  and  that  God  helps  him  as  a  free  agent,  and  not 
as  a  mass  of  lead.  A  piece  of  lead  cannot  be  helped  to  rise. 
It  may  be  lifted  ;  but  it  cannot  be  helped.  And  for  the 
simple  reason,  that  it  hath  no  agency  of  its  own  to  be  helped. 

The  Frexch  Co^TESSIO^^  —  Also,  though  he  be  endued  with  will,  whereby 
he  is  moved  to  this  or  that,  yet  insomuch  as  that  is  altogether  captivated 
under  sin,  it  hath  no  liberty  at  all  to  desire  good,  as  of  itself,  but  such  as 
it  hath  received  by  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  God.  We  believe  that  all  the 
offspring  of  Adam  is  infected  with  this  contagion,  which  we  call  original 
sin,  that  is,  a  stain  spreading  itself  by  propagation,  and  not  by  imitation 
only,  as  the  Pelagians  taught,  all  whose  errors  we  do  detest.    Neither  do 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  303 

we  think  it  necessary  to  search  how  this  sin  may  be  derived  from  one  unto 
another.  For  it  is  sufficient  that  those  things  which  God  gave  unto  Adam 
were  not  given  to  him  alone,  but  to  all  his  posterity  ;  and  therefore,  we  in 
his  person  being  deprived  of  all  those  good  gifts,  are  fallen  into  all  this 
misery  and  curse.  —  pp.  G8,  89. 

This  Confession  begins  with  the  natural  liberty  of  will  to 
choose  this  way  or  that,  and  asserts  only  its  moral  impotence, 
as  swayed  by  this  bias  of  our  constitution  as  aflfectcd  by  the 
fall. 

Confession  op  Bei/jia.  —  Therefore  whatever  things  are  taught,  as 
touching  man's  freewill  [that  is,  unbiased  will],  we  do  worthily  reject 
them,  seeing  that  man  is  the  servant  of  sin,  neither  can  he  do  anything 
of  himself,  but  as  it  is  given  him  from  heaven  ;  for  who  is  so  bold  as  to 
brag  that  he  is  able  to  perform  whatever  he  listeth,  when,  as  Christ  himself 
saith,  "JVb  man  can  conle  unto  me  except  my  Father  which  hath  sent  me 
do  draw  him  "  ? 

From  the  context  of  this  verse,  and  the  Catecnism,  it  appears 
that  this  drawing  is  accomplished  by  divine  teaching,  the  read- 
ing and  preaching  of  the  Word,  made  effectual  by  his  Spirit. 

The  AuGSBURGii  Confession. — And  this  corruption  of  man's  nature 
comprehendeth  both  the  defect  of  original  justice,  integrity  or  obedience, 
and  also  concupiscence.  This  defect  is  horrible  blindness  and  disobedience, 
that  is,  to  wit,  to  want  that  light  and  knowledge  of  God,  which  should 
have  been  in  our  nature,  being  perfect;  and  to  want  that  uprightness,  that 
is,  that  perpetual  obedience,  that  true,  pure,  and  chief  love  of  God,  and 
those  other  gifts  of  perfect  nature.  —  p.  71. 

We  have  seen  that  Luther,  the  author  of  this  Confession, 
teaches  the  natural  ability  of  man  as  a  free  agent,*—  that  all 
actual  sin  is  voluntary,  and  every  term  employed  here 
implies  a  moral,  not  a  natural  defect,  the  want  of  holiness, 
and  the  power  of  evil  desire. 

All  these  witnesses  of  the  truth  hold  to  the  freedom  of  the 
7vill  as  opposed  to  coercion  or  necessity,  but  deny  its  right 


.304  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

inclination  ;  and  thus,  while  they  justify  God's  requirements, 
they  throw  the  sinner  at  the  feet  of  sovereign  grace.  There 
he  lies  dead,  hopelessly  dead, —  not  in  body,  not  in  natural 
power,  but  dead  in  sins,  dead  morally,  dead  in  hatred  to 
God,  dead  in  unbelief,  dead  in  wilful  and  obstinate  disobedi- 
ence. And  this  distinction,  once  rightly  apprehended  and 
firmly  fixed  in  the  mind,  is  equal  to  twenty  thousand  candles 
lighted  up  and  carried  through  the  Bible. 

The  demand,  however,  is  often  made,  What  difference 
does  it  make  whether  the  inability  of  the  sinner  is  natural  or 
moral,  since  the  certainty  of  his  destruction  without  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  just  as  great  in  one  case  as  the  other?  and  of  what 
consequence  is  an  ability  never  exerted,  and  a  power  that  is 
never  employed  ? 

It  might  as  well  be  said  that  muscular  power  unexerted  is 
as  if  it  were  not ;  that  intellect  perverted  is  the  same  as 
idiocy,  and  conscience  seared  is  the  same  as  if  none  had  been 
given  ;  that  bread  rejected  to  starvation  is  the  same  as  inevi- 
table famine, —  as  to  say,  that  the  voluntary  perversion  of  all 
the  competent  powers  of  free  agency  is  the  same  thing  as  their 
non-existence. 

Does  it  amount  to  the  same  thing,  whether  a  man  cannot 
be  temperate,  or  can  be  and  will  not?  cannot  be  honest, 
or  can  be  and  will  not  ?  A  man  as  a  free  agent  may, 
indeed,  make  his  own  destruction  as  certain  as  if  he 
could  not  help  it.  But  does  it  make  no  difference,  as  to 
his  character  and  desert,  whether  he  perishes  from  the 
natural  impossibility  of  being  saved,  or  from  a  voluntary 
obstinacy  in  rejecting  salvation  ?  And  does  it  amount  to  the 
same  thing,  in  respect  to  the  character  of  God  and  the  equity 
of  his  government,  whether  sinners  fall  under  the  operation 
of  its  penalties  from  a  natural  impossibility  of  laying  hold  on 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  305 

the  provision  for  escaping  them  by  a  timely  repentance,  or  hy 
a  voluntary  obstinacy  in  despising  the  riches  of  his  goodness  1 
Provided  a  man,  as  a  matter  of  certainty,  "will  die  at  a  given 
time,  docs  it  amount  to  the  same  thing  -whether  he  was 
killed  unavoidably  or  committed  suicide?  was  thrust  off  a 
precipice  against  his  will,  or  threw  himself  off?  was  poisoned 
unwittingly,  or  purposely  poisoned  himself  7  was  assassinated 
by  the  dagger  of  another,  or  thrust  a  dagger  into  his  own 
bosom  ? 

The  difference  between  ability  and  inability,  in  the  subject, 
is  the  difference  between  the  natural  and  moral  government 
of  God  :  in  one  of  which  his  power  and  wisdom  and  good- 
ness are  displayed  in  the  superintendence  of  animals  and 
instincts, —  in  the  other,  in  the  administration  of  law,  and  the 
government  of  the  immortal  mind, —  in  which  his  justice,  and 
the  richness  of  his  goodness,  and  the  exceeding  greatness  of, 
his  mercy,  are  to  shine  forever.  But  does  it  make  no  differ- 
ence whether  his  justice  is  illustrated  in  punishing  the 
impotent,  or  the  unwilling  ?  and  his  mercy  in  forgiving  the 
non-performance  of  impossibilities,  or  the  wilful  disobedience 
of  reasonable  requirements  'I  It  makes  the  difference  between 
fatalism  and  free  agency, —  confounding  the  pretension  of  the 
atheist  to  a  temporary  animalism,  and  compelling  him  to 
tVemble  under  the  responsibilities  of  an  everlasting  accounta- 
bility, guilt  and  punishment. 

It  stops  the  pestilent  breath  of  sceptics  and  cavillers,  by 
which  thousands  of  youthful  minds  are  perverted,  reasoning 
minds  perplexed,  pious  minds  distressed,  and  dissolute  minds 
comforted  with  the  hope  of  impunity  in  sin,  because  God  is 
just  and  sin  is  unavoidable. 

It  takes  away  one  of  the  most  prevalent  temptations  to  the 
infidelity  and  atheism  of  the  present  day.     In  reading  the 

VOL.  III.  2Cy^' 


306  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

works  of  atheists  and  infidels,  and  in  attending  to  the  ohjec- 
tions  of  perverted  minds,  the  exciting  and  exasperating  cause 
seems  to  be,  the  supposition  of  accountabihtj,  associated  with 
a  constitutional  involuntary,  unavoidable  impotencj.  It  is 
the  belief  that  the  Bible  and  the  Calvinistic  Confessions  attach 
accountability  and  punishment  to  a  natural  impotency  which 
provokes  and  sustains  three-fourths  of  the  atheism  and  infidel- 
ity of  our  nation.  They  would  admit  the  equity  of  a  govern- 
ment requiring  according  to  what  a  man  hath,  but  are 
provoked  and  enraged  at  the  supposed  injustice  of  punish- 
ment unconnected  with  the  possibility  of  obedience  in  the 
subject ;  and  understanding  and  being  assured  by-  masters  in 
Israel  that  the  Bible  and  our  Confession  teach  this,  they  turn 
and  rend  the  Bible.  The  distinction  between  natural  and 
moral  ability  counteracts  the  Antinomian  perversions  of  the 
Calvinistic  system.  Through  all  periods  of  the  Church  since 
the  Reformation,  there  have  been  Antinomian  Calvinists,  and 
eras  of  outbreaking  Antinomian  ultraism ;  and  it  has  arisen 
from  giving  to  the  decrees  of  God  and  their  execution  the 
force  of  irresistible  causes,  and  to  man  the  action  of  a  passive 
machine  ;  and  though  in  some  it  has  stopped  in  the  frozen 
regions  of  intellectual  formality  and  presumptuous  reliance  on 
God's  efficiency  without  human  instrumentality,  in  the  less 
intellectual  and  more  heated  and  fanatical  it  has  degenerated 
not  unfrequently  into  the  most  reckless  licentiousness.  So 
the  same  opinions  operated  among  the  Jews,  as  we  learn  by 
the  terrible  interrogations  of  the  prophet, —  "  Will  ye  lie,  and 
steal,  and  commit  adultery,  and  swear  falsely,  and  burn 
incense  unto  Baal,  and  come  into  this  house  which  is  called 
by  my  name,  and  say  we  are  delivered  to  do  all  these  abomi- 
nations? We  have  no  power  over  ourselves.  We  do  but 
obey  the  irresistible  laws  of  our  nature.     We  are  delivered 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  307 

by  the  constitution  God  has  given  us,  to  do  all  these 
things. "  The  only  difference  between  these  ancient  and 
modern  liccniious  Antinomians  is,  that  the  ancient  denied 
accountability  entirely,  while  the  latter  attach  it  to  fatality. 
and  bring  in  the  gnce  of  God  to  deliver  from  a  natural 
impotency.  All  Uiese  obliquities  of  abused  Calvinism  have 
l)ccn  pushed  out,  as  I  believe,  by  the  system  of  a  supposed 
fatality  of  will  to  evil. 

The  one  is  the  occasion  of  great  perplexity  and  suffering  to 
the  pious,  and  not  infrequently  to  Christian  ministers.  They 
submit  to  it  as  very  right  because  God  does  it.  But  it  is 
a  dark  and  painful  subject, —  they  are  embarrassed  with  it  in 
their  preaching,  and  stUl  more  embarrassed  in  their  attempts 
to  meet  and  answer  the  objections  it  creates,  and  at  times  are 
excruciated  with  its  beariLgs  on  tlieir  common  sense  and  feel- 
ings. 

These  different  theories  manifest  their  different  results  in 
preaching.  The  one  tends  to  the  earnest  inculcation  of 
inmaediate  spiritual  obedience,  after  the  example  of  prophets, 
apostles,  and  the  whole  Bible.  The  other,  to  the  substitution 
of  unregenerate  prayers  and  strivings,  with  promises  of 
gracious  aid  ;  instead  of  commanding  aad  entreating  all  men 
everywhere  to  repent  and  fly  to  the  Saviour,  by  the  wrath  of 
God  abiding  on  them,  and  the  terrors  of  the  Lord  coming  on 
them. 

The  different  effects  of  our  Confession,  when  expounded,  as 
teaching  a  real  free  agency  or  a  real  fatality,  cannot  be  con- 
cealed or  denied.  By  very  large  portions  of  the  community 
the  construction  of  natural  inability  in  our  Creed  is  supposed 
to  teach  fatality,  associated  with  accountability,  environing 
our  Church  with  the  most  rancorous  hostility  and  immovable 
prejudice,  and  raising  up  l)etween  ourselves  and  other  denomi- 


308  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

nations  an  impassable  barrier,  and  giving  them  motive  and 
opportunity  to  impede  and  annoy  us.  The  most  successful 
means  employed  against  our  Church,  in  many  places,  have 
been  the  printing  and  circulation  of  our  Confession  as  a  text- 
book for  comment.  They  do,  indeed,  misunderstand  and 
misinterpret  its  meaning  ;  .but  perhaps  honestly,  inasmuch  as 
they  are  sustained  by  the  exposition  of  some  of  the  ministers 
of  our  own  Church, —  and  should  the  highest  judicature  of  our 
Church  pronounce  the  exposition  correci,  it  would  no  doubt 
greatly  facilitate  their  labor. 

In  addition  to  the  Christian  fathers  and  the  Protestant  Con- 
fessions, on  the  subject  of  moral  inability,  I  refer  to  every  one 
of  the  authorities  I  have  quoted. —  to  Luther,  Calvin,  Tur- 
retin,  Witherspoon,  Edwards,  Bellamy,  Hopkins,  Dwight, 
Spring  (father  and  son),  Wilson  of  Philadelphia,  Woods, 
Tyler  and  Dr.  Matthews, —  as  teaching  the  moral  inability  of 
man  as  consisting  in  an  uncoerced  voluntary  aversion  to 
spiritual  obedience,  not  merely  :n  consecutive  volition,  but  in 
a  permanent  character,  which  is  voluntary  and  culpable, 
because,  as  Turretin  says,  ^"  founded  in  a  habit  of  corrupt 
■will."  I  close  the  quotations  with  Dr.  Greene's  account  of 
moral  inability.     He  says  : 

I  conclude  the  present  lectui'e  with  a  quotation  from  Dr.  Witherspoon, 
in  which  my  own  views  of  the  topic  before  us  are  correctly  expressed,  — 
"  As  to  the  inahilitr  of  man  to  recover  himself  by  his  own  power,  though  I 
would  never  attempt  to  establish  a  metaphysical  system  of  necessity,  of 
which  infidels  avail  themselves  in  opposition  to  all  religion,  nor  presume  to 
explain  the  influence  of  the  Creator  on  the  creature,  yet  nothing  is  more 
plain  from  Scripture,  or  better  supported  by  daily  experience,  than  that 
man  by  nature  is,  in  fact,  incapable  of  recovery,  without  the  power  of  God 
specially  interposed.  I  will  not  call  it  a  necessity  arising  from  the  irresist- 
ible laws  of  nature.  I  see  it  is  not  a  necessity  of  the  same  kind  as  con- 
straint ;  but  I  see  it  an  impossibility  such  as  the  sinner  never  does  over- 
come."— C/irist  Advocate,  1831  ;  p.  349. 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  309 

If  there  be  any  doubt  of  Dr.  Witherspoon's  and  Dr. 
Greene's  meaning,  the  following  exposition  of  Withcrspoon 
himself  may  throw  some  light  on  the  subject. 

In  this  passage  Withcrspoon,  speaking  the  approved  senti- 
ments of  Dr.  Greene,  disclaims  the  infidel  system  of  natural 
necessity,  asserts  an  incapacity  in  man  to  recover  himself  to 
holiness  without  the  powder  of  God, —  not,  however,  arising 
from  the  irresistible  laws  of  nature,  not  a  necessity  of  the 
same  kind  as  constraint,  but  such  an  impossibility  as  the 
sinner  never  does  overcome.  This  is  correct,  and  is  a  good 
statement  of  natural  ability  and  moral  inability. 

Since  mention  has  been  made  of  perfect  conformity  to  the  -will  of  God,  or 
perfect  obedience  to  his  law,  as  the  duty  of  man,  which  is  indeed  the  found- 
ation of  this  whole  doctrine,  I  think  it  necessary  to  observCj  that  some 
deny  this  to  be  pi'operly  required  of  man,  as  his  duty  in  the  present  fallen 
state,  because  he  is  not  able  to  perform  it.  But  such  do  not  seem  to  attend 
either  to  the  meaning  of  perfect  obedience  or  to  the  nature  or  cause  of  this 
-J  inability.  Perfect  obedience  is  obedience  by  any  creature  to  the  utmost 
extent  of  his  natural  powers.  Even  in  a  state  of  innocence,  the  holy  dis- 
positions of  Adam  would  not  have  been  equal  in  strength  and  activity  to 
tliose  of  creatures  of  a  higher  rank  ;  but  surely  to  love  God,  who  is  infi- 
nitely amiable,  with  all  the  heart,  and  above  all  to  consecrate  all  his 
powers  and  faculties,  without  exception  and  without  intermission,  to  God's 
service,  must  be  undeniably  the  duty  of  every  intelligent  creature.  And 
what  sort  of  inability  are  we  under  to  pay  this  ?  Our  natural  faculties  are 
surely  as  fit  for  the  service  of  God  as  for  any  baser  purpose  ;  the  ina- 
bility  IS   ONLY  MORAL,  AND   LIES  WHOLLY  IN   THE  AVERSION  OF  OUR   HEARTS 

FROM  SUCH  EMPLOYMENT.  Does  this,  then,  take  away  the  guilt?  Must 
God  relax  his  law  because  we  are  not  willing  to  obey  it  ?  Consult  even 
modern  philosophers,  and  such  of  them  as  allow  there  is  any  such  thing 
as  vice  will  tell  you  that  it  lies  in  evil  or  misplaced  afiections.  Will,  then, 
that  which  is  ill  in  itself  excuse  its  fruits  from  any  degree  of  guilt  or  blame  ? 
The  truth  is,  notwithstanding  the  loud  charge  of  licentiousness  upon  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel,  there  is  no  other  system,  that  ever  I  perused,  which 
preserves  the  obligations  of  the  law  of  God  in  its  strength  ;  the  most  part 
of  them,  wlien  thoroughly  examined,  just  amount  to  this,  that  men  are 


310  VIEWS   OP   THEOLOGY. 

■bound,  and  that  it  is  right  and  meet  and  fit  that  they  should  be  as  good 
and  as  holy  as  they  themselves  incline.  —  Wither  spoon ,  vol.  i.  p.  45. 

This  is  all  which  any  one,  from  Justin  Martyr  to  this  day, 
has  taught,  concerning  man's  natural  ability,  namely,  that  he 
is  able  to  obey,  in  respect  to  any  hindrance  arising  from  the 
irresistible  laws  of  nature,  including  necessity  of  sinning  of  the 
same  kind  as  constraint.  Yet  nothing  is  better  supported 
from  Scripture  than  that  man  by  nature  is  in  fact  incapable 
of  recovery  without  the  power  of  God  specially  interposed, 
though  not  '  •  an  impossibility  such  as  the  sinner  cannot,  but 
such  as  he  never  does  overcome  :"  for,  as  Howe  says,  "  not- 
withstanding the  soul's  capabilities,  its  moral  incapacity — I 
mean  its  wicked  aversation  from  God  —  is  such  as  none  but 
God  himself  can  overcome."  Now,  if  all  these  writers, 
including  Dr.  Greene,  "  disclaim,"  as  he  does,  any  metaphys- 
ical system  of  necessity  of  which  infidels  avail  themselves  in 
opposition  to  all  religion, —  any  necessity  of  persisting  in 
actual  sin,  arising  from  the  irresistible  laws  of  nature, —  and 
only  insist  that  by  the  fall  such  an  aversation  of  man's  will 
from  God  has  been  occasioned  as  constitutes  such  an  impos- 
sibility as  the  sinner  never  does  overcome,  I  think  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  whole  Orthodox  Church  have  been  and  are 
singularly  united  in  the  doctrine  of  man's  natural  ability  of 
uncoerced  will,  and  in  his  moral  impotency  by  reason  of  a 
biased  and  perverted  will. 

I  subjoin  a  few  examples  of  natural  and  moral  inability,  as 
the  terms  are  familiarly  employed  in  the  Bible  : 

Natural  Ixability.  —  ' '  Thou  canst  not  see  my  face  and 
live."  Moses  desired  the  full-orbed  vision  of  the  glory  of 
God;  but  was  answered  that  it  would  destroy  his  life, —  his 
natural  powers  could  not  sustain  the  overpowering  manifesta- 


TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  311 

tion.  David  said  of  his  child,  after  his  death,  "  Can  I  bring 
him  back  again?  "  and  Solomon,  ''  Can  a  man  take  fire  in  his 
bosom,  and  his  clothes  not  be  burned?  "  And  God  demands, 
"Can  any  hide  himself  that  I  shall  not  see  him?"  "The 
Chaldeans  answered.  There  is  not  a  man  upon  the  earth  that 
can  show  the  king's  matter  —  tell  his  dream  and  its  interpreta- 
tion." "  They  which  -would  pass  from  hence  to  you  cannot  • 
neither  can  they  pass  to  us  that  would  come  from  thence." 
These  are  evidently  specimens  of  natural  inability,  which  no 
willingness  or  effort  on  the  part  of  the  agent  could  surmount. 

Let  us  noAv  look  at  the  same  terms  as  implying  inability 
from  disinchnation  or  contrary  choice, — "  aversation  of  will." 

Moral  Inability.  — "  With  God  all  things  are  possible;" 
that  is,  his  natural  power  is  equal  to  any  act  which  is  not  in 
its  own  nature  an  impossibility.  "  God  w^ho  cannot  lie," — • 
''  by  two  immutable  things  in  which  it  was  impossible  for  God 
to  lie."  Is  God's  omnipotence  so  limited  that  for  want  of 
power  he  could  rrot  utter  falsehood  ?  Is  it  not  the  infinite 
aversion  of  his  holiness  which  constitutes  the  inability? 
'•  The  strength  of  Israel  20 ill  not  lie.  Your  new  moons,  and 
Sabbaths,  and  calling  of  assemblies,  I  cannot  away  with ;  it 
is  iniquity,  even  the  solemn  meeting."  The  cannot  is  ex- 
plained to  mean  his  aversion  to  h^^pocrisy  in  worship ;  there- 
fore it  follows,  "when  ye  make  many  prayers  •/ ?^77/  not 
hear." 

It  is  said  of  our  Saviour,  that  "  he  must  needs  go  through 
Samaria."  Was  he  compelled  to  go  through  Samaria;  or 
did  he  simply,  for  sufiicient  reasons,  choose  to  go  that  way  ? 

"He  could  not  do  mighty  works  there  because  of  their  un- 
belief" Did  the  unbelief  of  man  overpower  divine  omnipo- 
tence, so  that  Christ  had  no  ability  to  work  miracles ;  or  did 
it  furnish  to  his  divine  wisdom  such  reasons  against  it  as  made 


312  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

him  jnefer  not  to  do  it,  expressed  by  the  phrase  could  not^ 
that  is.  chose  not  to  do  it  ? 

'•  Can  the  children  of  the  bride-chamber  fast  -while  the 
bridegroom  is  with  them  ? ' '  Doubtless  they  possess  the 
natural  ability.  But  the  meaning  is,  Will  they  choose  to  do 
it  ?     Can  they, —  that  is,  will  they  ? 

•'  Can -ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of?  "  It  was  the 
cup  of  suffering  and  of  ignominy ;  and  he  meant  not  whether 
they  could  feel  pain  and  persecution  and  shame  (for  he  told 
them  that  they  should),  but  whether  they  were  willing,  and 
believed  that  they  should  continue  willing,  to  suffer  with  him. 
"  Can  ye.'*'  that  is,  are  you  and  shall  you  be  willing? 

"If  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me."  Did  oxx: 
Saviour  doubt  whether  God  had  the  power  to  deliver  hiii 
instantly  from  suffering?  He  knew  he  could  do  it;  and 
only,  as  man,  was  not  certain  whether  the  agony  he  had 
already  suffered  might  suffice,  or  the  expiation  demanded 
more.  The  phrase,  if  it  be  possible^  means  therefore  if  it  be 
wise  and  seem  good  in  thy  sight, —  if  thou  art  satisfied  and 
willing,  let  this  cup  pass,  &c.  ;  but  if  otherwise,  not  my  ivili^ 
but  thy  loill  be  done.  "  Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make 
me  clean:"  that  is,  thou  canst  do  it,  if  thou  art  wilhng. 
implying,  as  in  the  case  before,  that  he  could  not  cleanse  him 
if  un wilhng,  calhng  unwillingness  inability. 

"  This  is  a  hard  saying  ;  who  can  hear  it?  "  This  means 
not  that  a  sinner  has  no  power  to  hear  the  humbling  doctrine 
of  total  depravity ;  but  who,  as  we  say,  can  bear  it. —  that  is, 
be  willing,  be  pleased  with  it?  From  that  time  many  of 
his  disciples  went  back,  and  walked  no  more  with  him.  It 
was  those  that  could  not  hear  such  sayings. 

"  Ye  cannot  drink  of  the  cup  of  the  Lord  and  the  cup  of 
devils."     The  natural  ability  of  man  qualifies  him  to  sit  at 


TRIAL   BEFOllB   PRESBYTERY.  313 

either  table;  but,  while  he  prefers  the  table  of  Christ,  he 
cannot  —  will  not  —  prefer  the  table  of  devils. 

"  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  not  subject  to 
the  laAV  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be."  If  this  means  a 
natural  inability,  how  docs  regeneration  help  the  matter,  as  it 
includes  the  creation  of  no  new  natural  powers  or  faculties  7 
But,  if  it  means  that  the  carnal  mind  is  one  which,  by  its 
friendship  for  the  world,  is  at  enmity  with  God,  then  it  is 
plain  that  the  mind  which  prefers  the  creature  to  God  cannot 
at  the  same  time  prefer  God  to  the  creature,  though  the 
hindrance  is  not  natural,  but  the  inability  of  the  will, —  a 
moral  inability, —  a  duty  prevented  by  a  contrary  choice. 

"  And  Joshua  said,  Ye  cannot  serve  the  Lord,  for  he  is  a 
holy  God."  The  people  understood  him  to  say  that  they 
had  no  moral  abihty, —  no  heart  to  serve  him, —  because  they 
were  so  sinful.  But  they  replied,  ''Nay,  but  we  will  serve 
the  Lord," —  we  have  the  ability  because  we  have  the  will. 

"How  can  ye  believe  who  receive  honor  one  of  another, 
and  seek  not  the  honor  that  cometh  from  God?  "  that  is,  how 
can  you  believe  who  prefer  the  praise  of  man  more  than  the 
praise  of  God, —  who  voluntarily  set  at  naught  Jesus  Christ '? 

"  The  natural  man  cannot  know  the  things  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  ;  "  but  why  can  he  not, —  wdiat  hinders  ? 

Answer.  — "  If  our  Gospel  be  hid  it  is  hid  to  them  who 
are  lost,  in  whom  the  god  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the 
hearts  of  them  that  believe  not."  "  No  man  can  come  unto 
me  except  the  Father  draw  him,"  that  is,  by  his  hearing  and 
being  taught  of  God  ;  making  the  reading,  and  especially  the 
preaching  of  his  Word,  the  means  of  his  effectual  calhng  by 
his  Spirit. 

These  examples,  to  which  thousands  might  be  added,  decide 
that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  given  by 

VOL.  III.  27 


314  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

inspiration  of  God,  do  maintain  the  distinction  between  things 
"whose  existence  is  perverted  for  want  of  sufficient  capacity  in 
the  agent,  and  things  which  he  within  the  Hmits  of  his  capac- 
ity and  are  only  prevented  by  his  choice, —  and  that  both 
are  expressed  by  the  terms  cannot^  impossible^  unable^  &c., — 
lea\dng  it  to  the  nature  and  connections  of  the  subject  to 
indicate  the  pecuhar  meaning,  and  , never,  except  in  theologi- 
cal controversy,  or  the  cavillings  of  sinners,  leading  to  any 
mistake. 

I  have  said  that  this  use  of  the  terms  cannot^  unable^  &c., 
to  indicate  those  things  which  men  are  able  to  perform,  but 
do  not  choose  to  do,  is  not  a  phraseology  peculiar  to  the 
Bible,  but  is  a  mode  of  speaking  into  which  the  universal 
mind  of  man,  in  all  nations,  ages  and  languages,  has  fallen, 
from  the  famiharity  of  the  conversational  and  business  dialect, 
up  to  the  most  labored  efforts  of  argument  and  eloquence. 

I  ask  my  neighbor  who  is  on  a  sick  bed.  Are  you  able  to 
walk  ?  and  he  replies,  I  am  not.  When  restored  to  health,  I 
inquire  of  him.  Can  you  assist  me  in  my  business  to-day  ?  and 
he  rephes,  I  cannot.  I  should  be  glad  to  oblige  you,  but 
my  own  business  compels  me  to  go  another  way.  How  often, 
when  a  man  is  provoked  at  the  conduct  of  his  neighbor,  do 
we  hear  the  indignant  exclamation, —  "It  is  too  bad, —  I 
cannot  bear  it !  "  And  how  common  is  it  to  say  of  a  man, 
strongly  prejudiced  by  interest  or  passion,  he  cannot  hear, 
cannot  see,  cannot  understand ;  and  of  the  miser  when  the  cry 
of  the  widow  and  fatherless  assails  him,  he  cannot  give.  Gold 
is  his  god,  and  his  heart  is  made  of  stone. 

The  following  examples  from  Edwards,  and  Buck,  and  a 
few  other  writers  of  eminence,  will  suffice  both  to  illustrate 
the  nature  of  the  distinction  between  natural  and  moral  ina- 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  315 

bility,  find  the  icsiis  loquendi  of  theological,  political  and  lit- 
erary authors  : 

Edwards.  —  To  give  some  instances  of  this  moral  inability  :  A  woman  of 
great  honor  and  chastity  may  have  a  moral  inability  to  prostitute  herself 
to  her  slave.  A  child  of  great  love  and  duty  may  be  unable  to  be  willing 
to  kill  his  father.  A  drunkard,  under  such  and  such  circumstances,  may 
be  unable  to  forbear  taking  of  strong  drink.  A  very  malicious  man  may 
be  unable  to  exert  benevolent  acts  to  an  enemy,  or  to  desire  his  prosperity; 
yea,  some  may  be  so  under  the  power  of  a  vile  disposition  that  they  may 
be  xinable  to  love  those  who  are  most  worthy  of  their  esteem  and  affection. 
A  strong  habit  of  virtue,  and  a  great  degree  of  holiness,  may  cause  a  moral 
inability  to  love  Avickedness  in  general,  may  render  a  man  unable  to  take 
complacence  in  wicked  persons  or  things,  or  to  choose  a  wicked  life,  and 
prefer  it  to  a  virtuous  life.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  a  great  degree  of 
habitual  wickedness  may  lay  a  man  under  an  inability  to  love  and  choose 
holiness,  and  render  him  utterly  unable  to  love  an  infinitely  holy  being,  or 
to  choose  and  cleave  to  him  as  his  chief  good. 

Buck. 

JVatural  Inability.  Moral  Inability. 

Cain  could  not  have  killed  Abel,  Cain  could  not  have  killed  Abel, 

if  Cain  had  been  the  weakest,  and  if  Cain  feared  God,  and  loved  his 

Abel  aware  of  him.  brother. 

Jacob  could  not  rejoice  in  Joseph's  Potiphar's  wife  could  not  rejoice 

exaltation  befoi-e  he  heard  of  it.  in  it,  if  she  continued  under  it. 

The  woman  mentioned  in  2d  Kings  Had  that  woman  been  a  very  affec- 

G  :  29  could  not  kill  her  neighbor's  tionate  mother,  she  could  not  have 

son  and  eat  him,  when  he  was  hid,  killed  her  own  son  in  a  time  of  plenty, 

and  slie  could  not  find  him.  as  she  did  in  a  time  of  famine. 

ITazael  could  not  have  smothered  If  a  dutiful,  afiectionate  son  had 

Bonhadad,  if  he  had  not  been  suf-  been  waiting  on  Benhadad,  in  Ha- 

fercd  to  enter  his  chamber.  zael's    stead,   he    could    not    have 

smothered  him,  as  Hazael  did. 

There  is  hardly  an  author  of  repute,  from  the  time  of 
Alfred  to  the  present  day,  —  whetlier  a  poet,  a  historian,  an 
essayist,  or  a  metaphysician, —  who  docs  not  afford  abundant 


316  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

examples  of  such  use  of  the  word  cannot.     I  select  a  few 
from  known  and  classical  authors  : 

LoED  Bacon.  —  A  man's  person  hath  many  relations  which  he  cannot 
put  off.  A  man  cannot  speak  to  his  wife  but  as  a  husband  ;  to  his  son, 
but  as  a  father  ;  to  his  enemy,  but  upon  terms.  —  p.  186. 

Dr.  JoHXSOX.  —  In  apologizing  for  the  omission  of  many 
business  terms  in  his  Dictionary,  he  says  : 

I  could  not  visit  caverns  to  learn  the  miner's  language,  nor  take  a 
voyage  to  perfect  my  skill  in  the  dialect  of  navigation,  nor  visit  warehouses 
of  merchants  and  shops  of  artificers,  to  gain  the  names  of  wares,  tools,  and 
operations,  of  which  no  mention  is  made  in  books. 

Again,  moral  and  natural  inability  are  brought  together  in 
one  sentence : 

There  never  can  be  wanting  some  who  will  consider  that  a  whole  life 
cannot  be  spent  on  syntax  and  etymology,  and  that  even  a  whole  life  would 
not  be  sufficient. 

Shakspeare, —  who  is  as  noted  for  using  language  as 
men  in  every  situation  use  it,  as  he  is  for  delineation  of  char- 
acter : 

Pray,  can  I  not. 
Though  inclination  be  as  sharp  as  't  wUl, 
My  stronger  guilt  defeats  my  strong  intent  ; 
And,  like  a  man  to  double  business  bound, 
*  I  stand  in  pause  where  I  shall  first  begin. 

And  both  neglect.  *        *         *         * 

But  0,  what  form  of  prayer 
Can  serve  my  tarn  ?     Forgive  me  my  foul  murder  ! 
That  cannot  be  ;  since  I  am  still  possessed 
Of  those  efiects  for  which  I  did  the  murder,  — 
My  crown,  mine  own  ambition,  and  my  queen. 

Hamlet,  Act  iii.  Scene  3. 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  3t7 

Burke.  —  I  cannot  remove  the  eternal  barriers  of  creation. 

This  was  a  physical  impossibility.  But  is  the  following, 
occurring  just  before  in  the  same  speech,  physically  impossi- 
ble? 

I  cannot  insult  and  ridicule  the  feelings  of  millions  of  my  fellow- 
creatures,  as  Sir  Edward  Coke  insulted  one  excellent  individual  (Sir 
Walter  Raleigh)  at  the  bar.  —  Speech  on  Conciliation  with  America. 

"VVeijstek.  —  This  court,  then,  does  not  admit  the  doctrine  that  a  legis- 
lature can  repeal  statutes  creating  private  corporations.  If  it  cannot 
repeal  them  altogether,  of  course  it  cannot  repeal  any  part  of  them,  or 
impair  them,  or  essentially  alter  them,  without  the  consent  of  the  corpo- 
rators. 

But  if  the  court  had  chosen  to  be  unjust,  could  they  not 
do  this  ?     Was  it  physically  impossible  ? 

So,  in  the  same  speech,  he  says,  in  still  stronger  language, 
"  In  the  very  nature  of  things,  a  charter  cannot  be  forced 
upon  anybody ;  no  one  can  be  compelled  to  accept  a  grant." 

But  is  it  literally  impossible  for  one  to  be  compelled  by 
suitable  power  7 

So,  a  few  lines  after, —  "It  cannot  be  pretended  that  the 
legislature,  as  successor  to  the  king  in  this  part  of  his  pre- 
rogative, has  any  power  to  revoke,  vacate,  or  alter  this 
charter."  But  if  one  chose  to  pretend  this,  could  he  not?  — 
Webster'' s  Speech  in  case  Dartmouth  College  v.  William 
H.  Woodward. 

Alexander  Hamilton. — It  cannot  be  affirmed  that  a  duration  of  four 
years,  or  any  other  limited  duration,  would  completely  answer  the  end 
proposed.  —  Federalist,  No.  61. 

Surely  he  knew  that  it  coidd  be  affirmed,  if  any  chose  to. 

Judge  Story.  —  Had  the  faculties  of  man  been  competent  to  the  framing 
of  a  system  of  government  which  would  leave  nothing  to  implication,  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that  the  effort  would  have  been  made  by  the  framers  of 
our  constitution. —  Com.  on  Constitution  (abridged),  p.  147. 
VOL.  III.  27* 


318  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

It  certainly  could  not  reasonably^  but  would  it  be  out  of 
the  power  of  "tnind  to  do  so  ? 

But  it  is  said,  If  men,  as  free  agents,  are  in  reality  able  to 
obey  the  Gospel,  how  does  it  happen  that  under  such  a  press- 
ure of  motives  no  one  of  the  human  race  should  ever  have 
done  it  ?  And  suppose  we  could  not  tell,  and  should  admit 
that  it  is  wonderful, —  as  God  does, — would  it  follow  that  the 
reason  is  the  natural  impossibility  of  evangelical  obedience  7 
How  could  it  be  wonderful  that  men  do  not  of  themselves  obey 
the  Gospel,  if  the  reason  of  it  is  that  it  is  a  natural  impos- 
sibility ?  Is  it  wonderful  that  men  do  not  create  worlds,  or 
uphold  or  govern  the  universe  ?  and  why  should  the  non-per- 
formance of  one  impossibility  be  more  wonderful  than  another  7 
Can  there  be  no  uniformity  of  character  without  a  coercive 
necessity  producing  it  7  Is  not  God  of  one  mind,  immutable, 
yet  free  7  Are  not  the  angels  free  who  kept  their  first 
estate  7  And  are  not  the  fallen  angels,  though  immutably 
wicked,  as  voluntary  in  their  opposition  to  God  as  the  holy 
angels  are  voluntary  in  their  obedience  7  As  to  the  uniform 
disobedience  of  fallen  man  until  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
we  have  only  to  say  it  is  a  matter  of  fact,  well  authenticated, 
that  free  agents  do  so  ;  that  it  is  a  part  of  the  terrific  nature 
of  sinful  man  to  baffle  all  motives,  and  be  voluntarily  but 
unchangeably  wicked,  persevering  in  rebellion,  amid  com- 
mands, prohibitions,  promises  and  threatenings,  and  the  en- 
treaties of  the  holy  universe,  and  the  w^eepings  and  wailings 
of  the  lost. 

The  next  topic  in  order  is  that  of  Original  Sin.  And, 
in  my  belief,  there  is  no  subject  in  theology  on  which  it  is 
more  difficult  to  speak  with  clearness  and  accuracy  than  con- 
cerning the  efiects  of  the  fall  on  the  posterity  of  Adam,  and 
the  condition  of  the  human  mind  before  it  arrives  at  the 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESI3YTERY.  319 

point  of  developing  its  intellectual  and  moral  powers  in  actual 
sin.  Nor  is  it  wonderful,  because  neither  intuition  nor  phi- 
losophy, nor  }>ersonal  communion  with  infant  mind,  makes  us 
acquainted  with  its  attributes.  For  this  reason,  when  I  have 
spoken  on  the  subject,  I  have  confined  myself  uniformly  to 
the  facts  in  the  case  revealed  in  the  Bible,  and  discarded  per- 
tinaciously all  theorizing. 

"What  the  precise  errors  are  which  I  am  supposed  to  hold, 
I  do  not  know ;  but,  from  the  evidence  relied  on,  and  the  gen- 
eral course  of  the  argument,  it  would  seem  that  I  am  supposed 
to  hold  the  Pelagian  doctrine  on  the  subject ;  that  I  deny 
that  Adam  was  the  federal  head  and  representative  of  his 
race ;  that  the  covenant  was  made  not  only  with  Adam,  but 
also  with  his  posterity ;  that  the  guilt  of  his  sin  was  im- 
puted to  them;  that  there  is  any  such  thino-  as  native 
depravity ;  or  that  infants  are  depraved.  That,  on  the  con- 
trary, I  hold  and  teach,  that  infants  are  innocent,  and  as  pure 
as  Adam  before  the  fall ;  and  that  each  one  stands  or  falls  for 
himself,  as  he  rises  to  personal  accountability  ;  and  that  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  original  sin,  descending  from  Adam  by 
ordinary  generation ;  and  that  original  sin  is  not  sin  in  any 
sense  deserving  of  God's  wrath  and  curse. 

Now,  every  one  of  these  assumed  errors  of  my  faith  I 
deny  to  be  my  faith.  They  ascribe  to  me  opinions  which  I 
have  never  held  or  taught ;  and,  as  I  shall  show,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  I  ever  taught  one  of  them. 

There  is  no  more  evidence  of  my  holding  or  teaching  the 
doctrines  of  Pelagius  on  original  sin,  than  there  is  of  my 
holding  the  doctrine  of  Mahomet,  or  the  Brahmins,  or  the 
Pope.  And,  though  I  doubt  not  that  my  direct  evidence  will 
be  satisflictory,  I  will  not  omit  that  which  is  collateral  and 
circumstantial.    My  religious  education  was  superintended  by 


320  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

pious  Calvinists  of  blessed  memory ;  and  was  as  orthodox  as 
the  Assembly's  Catechism,  committed  to  memory,  could  make 
it.  My  convictions  of  sin  were  in  accordance  with  my  educa- 
tional belief,  and  were  deep  and  distressing,  to  the  cutting  oflf 
of  all  self-righteous  hope  from  native  excellence,  or  acceptable 
obedience  in  any  action,  social,  civil  or  religious,  and  laid  me 
low  in  an  agony  of  self-despair,  at  the  footstool  of  mercy,  as 
unholy,  totally  depraved,  justly  condemned,  and  hopeless  of 
regeneration  and  pardon  but  through  the  infinite  sovereign 
mercy  of  God,  through  the  merits  of  Christ.  And  the 
change  which  led  me  to  hope,  and  has  sustained  me  in  my 
ministry,  and  holds  up  mj  hopes  of  heaven,  was,  I  full  well 
know,  "not  o^  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  nor  of  the  will 
of  the  flesh,  but  of  God ;  "  so  that,  if  I  am  a  Pelagian 
now  in  mv  faith,  few  men  can  be  more  inexcusable  in  oblit- 
erating^ the  teachings  of  a  pious  education,  or  the  teachings 
of  God's  holy  Spirit  in  my  own  distressing  experience.  But 
I  have  not  gone  back.  I  remember  the  horrid  pit,  and  have 
also  in  fresh  recollection  the  wormwood  and  the  gall ;  and  it 
is  knowing  the  terrors  of  the  Lord,  and  the  love  of  Christ  in 
mj  deliverance  from  them,  which,  if  I  am  not  deceived,  have 
sustained  and  animated  me  in  the  work  of  the  ministry.  My 
theological  education  was  under  Dwight;  and  the  authors 
which  contributed  to  form  and  settle  my  faith  were  Edwards, 
Bellamy,  Witherspoon,  Dwight,  and  Fuller.  With  such 
favorite  authors  for  my  guide,  I  have  perceived  in  myself  no 
retrocession  from  my  early  convictions.  The  doctrines  which 
have  constituted  the  body  and  power  of  my  preaching,  so  far 
as  it  has  had  any,  have  been, —  the  doctrine  of  God's  decrees, 
the  fall,  the  native  and  total  depravity  of  man,  election, 
effectual  calling,  or  regeneration  by  the  special  influence  of^ 
the  Holy  Spirit,  justification  by  the  merits  of  Christ  through 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  321 

faith,  and  the  perseverance  of  the  saints  ;  doctrines  not  com- 
monly, I  believe,  found  in  alliance  Avith  Pelagian  notions  of 
native  excellence  and  regeneration  by  moral  suasion ;  and  my 
preaching,  if  Pelagians  or  Unitarians  have  claimed  me,  has 
never  seemed  to  satisfy  them,  or  the  results  of  it  to  corre- 
spond with  what  they  claimed  to  be  the  proper  fruits  of 
correct  preaching ;  they  have  been  the  results  of  Calvinistic 
preaching,  in  convictions  of  sin  and  apparent  conversions  to 
God,  such  as  Pelagians  ridicule  and  denounce  as  fanaticism, 
instead  of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit. 

I  have  never  been  ultra  Calvinistic,  pushing  my  opinions 
towards  Antinomian  fatality ;  nor  have  I  at  all  more  leaned 
to  the  doctrine  of  Pelagian  free  will  and  human  self-suffi- 
ciency ;  and  in  doctrine  I  am  what  I  ever  have  been,  having 
gained  only  the  more  accurate  and  comprehensive  knowledge 
which  use  and  study  afford,  and  the  facilities  of  presenting  to 
every  man  his  portion  in  due  season,  as  the  result  of  experi- 
ence in  the  adaptation  of  particular  truths  to  particular  states 
of  mind.  All  this,  however,  is  nothing  against  positive  evi- 
dence of  defection.  But  no  such  evidence  has  been  produced. 
The  chief  evidence  relied  on  is  contained  in  my  sermon  on 
the  native  character  of  man.  But  that  sermon  was  not 
designed  to  teach,  and  does  not  teach  professedly,  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin.  It  has  no  direct  respect  to  that  doctrine. 
There  is  not  a  word  in  the  sermon  designed  to  state,  explain, 
prove,  or  apply,  that  doctrine.  The  subject  of  the  sermon  is 
THE  TOTAL  DEPRAVITY  OF  ADULT  MAN,  and  affords  not  the 
least  evidence  of  what  my  opinions  are  on  the  subject  of 
original  sin.  By  the  laws  of  interpretation,  therefore,  you 
are  not  permitted  to  travel  out  of  the  record,  and  apply  to 
infants  and  original  sin  the  language  I  have  held  with  express 
and  exclusive  reference  to  the  total  depravity  of  adult  man. 


322  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

It  was  occasioned  by  local  exigency  in  my  congregation, —  the 
restiveness  of  a  man  of  talents  and  learning  under  the  preach- 
ing of  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  especially  in  its  denial 
of  the  native  virtues  and  acceptable  doings  of  unregenerate 
men.  It  was  Pelagianism,  in  substance,  that  rose  up  against 
me;  and  the  sermon  was  purposely  constructed  so  as,  by 
explaining  and  proving  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  to  put 
it  down.  The  correctness  of  this  representation  will  be 
sustained  by  an  analysis  of  the  sermon. 

ANALYSIS    OF   THE   SERMON    ON   THE   NATIVE    CHAUACTER 
OF   MAN.* 

Its  title  precludes  any  reference  to  original  sin ;  it  is. 
The  Native  Character  of  Man  ;  meaning,  of  course,  not  his 
native  constitution,  but  the  character  which  all  men  first 
form  who  come  up  to  personal  actioii.  Native^  as  applied  to 
character,  is  sanctioned  by  correct  theological  use,  and  means 
the  character  which  all  men  first  sustain,  in  the  exercise  of 
their  own  powers,  under  the  perverting  influence  of  the  fall. 

The  text  has  exclusive  regard  to  adults,  to  regenerated 
men  :   "  Whosoever  loveth  is  born  of  God." 

It  is  regarded  in  its  exposition  as  holy  love, —  the  fulfilling 
of  the  law, —  the  principle  of  evangelical  obedience, —  rehgion, 
—  does  not  belong  to  men  by.  nature, —  is  never  a  quality  of 
his  heart  by  natural  birth,  and  is  the  result  of  a  special  divine 
interposition  which  makes  him  a  child  of  God.  Both  the  text 
and  introduction,  therefore,  respect  regeneration  in  adult  man. 

It  is  the  object  of  'the  sermon  to  prove  that  man  is  not 
religious  by  nature. —  meaning  by  man  the  race;  and  by 
'•not  religious  by  nature."  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  con- 
stitution of  adult  man  of  which  religion  is  ever  the  result, 

*  Vide  page  53. 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  323 

without  a  change  of  heart  hj  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  proof  in  every  particular  respects,  evidently  and 
only,  adult  man  and  actual  sin. 

Universal  experience  evinces  that  the  supreme  love  of  the 
^Yorld  constitutes  the  first  character  of  man.  All  men  are 
conscious  that  they  set  their  affections  first  supremely  on  the 
world,  and  not  on  God.  Awakened  sinners  discover  that 
they  have  no  true  love  to  God,  and  Christians  can  look  back 
to  the  time  Avhcn  evidently  they  had  none. 

The  history  of  the  world  is  inconsistent  with  the  supposi- 
tion of  native  religion.  Its  idolatry,  its  animalism,  gluttony, 
intemperance,  and  lust, —  its  wars,  frauds,  violence,  and  blood. 
Love  to  God  and  man  in  the  hearts  of  all  by  nature  could 
not  have  made  such  a  history  as  that  of  our  world  has  been. 

The  Bible  affords  no  testimony  to  the  piety  of  man  by  nature, 
—  says  nothing  good  of  the  humanjieart, —  not  a  syllable. 

It  ascribes  to  the  heart  of  man  by  nature  a  character 
inconsistent  with  religion, —  evil  oiihj,  deceitful,  fully  set  on 
evil,  desperately  wicked,  full  of  madness. 

The  scriptural  account  of  childhood  shows  that  man  is  not 
born  religious.  Every  imagination  of  the  heart  is  evil  from 
his  youth, —  the  wicked  arc  estranged  from  the  womb, —  no 
religion  born  with  them. 

All  the  generic  descriptions  of  the  race  are  such  as  preclude 
religion  as  the  native  character  of  man. 

INIan  is  the  generic  of  the  race.  But  what  is  man  that  he 
should  be  clean  7  or  the  son  of  man,  that  he  should  be 
righteous  ? 

The  world  is  another  generic  term,  characteristic  of  the 
race.  But  it  is  a  world  Avhich  hated  Christ,  and  whose  friend- 
ship is  enmity  with  God. 

The  flesh  is  another.  But  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
as^ainst  God. 


824  VIEWB   OP   THEOLOGY. 

The  whole  world  is  divided  into  classes,  and  all  men  are 
described  as  holy  or  unholy,  righteous  or  wicked.  But  never 
as  rio-hteous  first,  but  always  as  wicked  first,  and  as  becoming 
rio-hteous  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit. 

It  was  while  we  were  enemies  that  Christ  died  for  us ; 
and  it  is  only  by  being  reconciled  that  we  become  religious. 

It  is  the  direct  testimony  of  the  omniscient  God,  that  all 
have  gone  out  of  the  way, —  become  vile;  none  that  do 
good, —  no,  not  one. 

The  alleged  universal  necessity  of  a  change  to  qualify 
men  for  heaven  is  proof  that  they  have  no  religion. 

The  reversal  of  this  argument  shows  its  force.  If  the  first 
accountable  character  of  man  is  a  religious  character^. 
this  entire  body  of  evidence  must  be  reversed.  All  men  must 
be  conscious  of  supreme  love  to  God  in  early  life,  and  con- 
viction of  sin  and  a  moral  renovation  must  be  confingd  to 
those  who  have  lost  their  religion,  while  the  great  body  of 
Christians  must  be  supposed  to  be  such  without  the  conscious- 
ness of  any  change.  At  the  same  time,  the  history  of  the 
world  must  be  found  to  be  a  history  of  the  fruits  of  piety ; 
idolatry  itself  being  only  an  aberration  of  religious  affection  in 
the  fast  friends  of  God,  emulous  to  please  their  heavenly 
Father  !  It  should,  moreover,  be  found  written  upon  the 
unerring  page,  "  Every  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  good 
from  his  youth.  The  children  of  men  have  not  gone  out  of 
the  way.  There  is  none  that  doth  not  understand  and  seek 
God,  and  do  good ;  no,  not  one.  The  heart  of  the  sons  of 
men  is  full  of  goodness^  out  of  which  proceed  holy  thoughts, 
benevolent  deeds,  chastity,  truth  and  reverence  for  God. 
What,  therefore,  is  man,  that  he  should  be  loicked  7  or  he 
that  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  not  be  religious  ? 
How  lovely  and  pure  is  man,  who  drinketh  in  righteousness 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  825 

like  water  !  This  is  the  ajjprohation^  that  darkness  is  come 
into  the  world,  and  men  have  loved  light  more  than  darkness 
because  their  deeds  are  good.  The  whole  world  lieth  in 
righteousness.  He  [Christ]  was  in  the  world,  and  the 
world  h-neia  him.  0  righteous  Father,  the  Avorld  hath  known 
thee.  The  friendship  of  the  world  is  frieiidship  with  God. 
If  the  world  hath  loved  you,  ye  know  that  it  loved  me  before 
it  loved  you.  Be  ye,  therefore,  conformed  to  the  world, 
and  be  ye  not  transformed  by  any  renewing  of  your  mind. 
My  spirit  shall  always  strive  with  man,  because  he  is  spirit. 
For  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  sjnrit.  Marvel  not 
that  I  say  unto  you  ye  mi/st  not  be  born  again.  For  the 
works  of  the  flesh  are  love^  joy^  peace^  faith ;  and  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  love,  joy,  peace,  faith.  In  me, —  that 
is,  in  my  flesh, —  dwelleth  ei;er?/  good  thing.  Jesus  Christ 
came  J;o  seek  and  to  save  those  who  were  not  lost ;  and  he 
died  not  for  his  enemies, —  not  the  just  for  the  unjust,  but  for 
his  righteous  friends.  The  Gospel  demands  of  men  no  neio 
character  ;  and  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  imply  the  early 
and  universal  piety  of  the  human  family." 

All  the  inferences  from  the  doctrine  as  thus  proved  refer 
to  man  as  an  adult  subject  of  the  government  of  God. 

1.  This  discussion  discloses  the  nature  of  depravity  in 
unrenewed  man :  it  consists  in  the  want  of  love  to  God,  and 
loving  the  creatui-e  more  than  God ;  in  covetousness,  which 
is  idolatry,  having  other  gods  before  him. 

2.  The  depravity  of  adult  man  is  voluntary,  as  ojDposed  to 
a  coercive  necessity  of  sinful  choice. 

3.  It  is  positive.  Not  merely  the  want  of  love  to  God, 
but  actual  transgression  against  God.     Active  enmity. 

4.  It  is  great,  as  committed  against  a  being  of  infinite  ex- 
cellence,—  a  violation  of  infinite  obligation, — against  the  most 

VOL.  III.  28 


326  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

powerful  motives  in  the  most  aggravating  circumstances,  and 
"vvith  unparalleled  obstinacy  of  determination. 

5.  The  depravity  of  man  implied  in  the  absence  of  religion 
is  entire, —  fallen  adult  man  is  totally  depraved. 

6.  It  illustrates  the  nature  and  necessity  of  regeneration, 
as  being  the  commencement  of  holy  love  to  God  in  the  soul ; 
its  absence,  death  in  sin ;  its  presence,  by  the  power  of  the 
Spirit,  a  resurrection  from  the  dead.  It  is  a  change  percep- 
tible by  its  effects,  and  instantaneous  in  its  commencement. 
There  is  a  moment  when  he  who  loved  the  world  more  than 
God  gives  it  up,  and  gives  his  heart  to  God, —  a  time  when 
the  METANOIA  comes  to  pass. 

This  is  my  Pelagian  sermon.  A  sermon  on  total  adult 
depravity,  and  its  nature  as  voluntary,  consisting  in  enmity 
to  God,  selfishness,  pride,  covetousness,  idolatry,  impenitence, 
and  unbelief 

The  only  alleged  evidence  of  its  Pelagianism  is  contained 
in  what  is  said  about  the  voluntariness  of  actual  sin  in  adult 
man,  as  opposed  to  a  supposed  created  instinct,  or  the 
direct  efficiency  of  God^  producing  actual  sin  by  an  irresist- 
ible and  fatal  necessity;  but  from  the  text,  subject,  argu- 
ment, and  inferences  of  the  discourse,  it  is  undeniable  that  it 
has  reference  only  to  actual  sin  and  total  depravity,  and  has 
no  direct  reference  to  original  sin  at  ail.  It  was  written  in 
Connecticut,  anterior  to  the  controversies  which  now  ao-itato 
the  Church.  It  was  demanded  to  encounter  and  resist  the 
most  specious  Pelagian  argument  against  the  total  depravity 
of  man  which  I  have  ever  seen.  It  was  deduced  from  the 
various  noble  and  amiable  traits  of  human  constitution  and 
conduct  which  survive  the  fall,  and  are  always  urged  as  mat- 
ter-of-fact exceptions  to  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity :  such 
as  taste  and  admiration  of  moral  fitness ;  approbation  of  truth 


TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  327 

and  justice ;  constitutional  kindness  and  sympathy  and  com- 
passion ;  the  natural  affections,  "which  unite  the  family  in  all 
their  tenderness  and  power ;  the  amiable  constitutional  tem- 
peraments which  survive  the  fall ;  honor  and  honesty  in  deal- 
ings, and  liberality  as  opposed  to  covetousness  and  miserly 
meanness ;  correct  morality,  poAver  of  conscience,  public  spirit, 
patriotism,  great  usefulness,  accompanied  by  a  copious  retinue 
of  good  works.  The  argument  against  total  depravity  was 
written,  and  read,  and  commented  on  with  great  ability,  and 
in  a  manner  which  compelled  me  to  provide  the  antidote. 
With  an  especial  view,  then,  to  meet  and  refute  these  Pela- 
gian matter-of-fact  exceptions  to  the  doctrine  of  total  adult 
depravity,  I  constructed  the  sermon  which  is  now  adduced  in 
evidence  against  me  on  the  subject  of  original  sin.  I  began 
with  the  position  that  unrenewed  men  have  no  true  rclrgion, 
because  that  was  a  point  conceded ;  and  having  established  it, 
as  I  believed,  I  proceeded  to  draw  the  inferences  which,  as  I 
supposed,  cut  up  by  the  roots  these  Pelagian  virtues  as  hav- 
ing any  clahii  to  be  considered  valid  exceptions  to  the  doc- 
trine of  total  depravity ;  leaving  in  its  full  force  the  evidence 
that  in  adult  man  there  dwelleth  no  good  thing,  and  that 
every  imagination  of  his  heart  is  evil  only  continually.  Now, 
that  this  sermon,  written  on  purpose  to  put  down  the  Pela- 
gian exceptions  to  total  depravity,  should  be  years  after,  in 
another  and  distant  department  of  the  Church,  quoted  and 
admitted  as  a  proof  of  my  Pelagianism,  would  be  an  anomaly 
of  mental  obliquity  and  injustice  which  I  am  sure  cannot 
find  a  place  in  the  judicatures  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Even  had  it  contained,  in  the  ardor  of  argument,  expressions 
not  sufficiently  guarded,  and  which  by  possibility  might  be 
interpreted  to  mean  heresy,  no  court,  in  the  unbiased  exercise 
of  Christian  candor,  would  permit  them  to  be  turned  aside 


328  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

from  the  main  design  and  governing  argument  of  the  dis- 
course. Much  less  where,  though  it  was  not  the  object  of  the 
sermon  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  it  does  so  by 
proving  two  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  always  relied  on  by 
the  Orthodox  Church,  and  by  Edwards  in  particular,  to  prove 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin ;  I  mean  the  doctrine  of  total 
depravity  and  the  doctrine  of  regeneration.  One  of  the  main 
arguments  of  Edwards  to  prove  original  sin  is  the  universal- 
ity and  entireness  of  actual  sin  ;  from  which  he  infers  that, 
anterior  to  actual  agency,  there  is  in  all  men,  as  a  conse- 
quence of  our  federal  alliance  with  Adam,  some  common 
cause,  ground  or  reason,  of  universal  and  total  actual  deprav- 
ity, which  he  calls  "the  influence  of  a  prevailing,  effectual 
tendency  in  the  nature  of  man  "  to  actual  sin.  And  thus  I 
prove  the  doctrine  of  original  sin, —  incidentally,  indeed,  but 
really, —  by  proving  the  actual,  universal,  total  depravity  of 
man.  There  must  be,  and  there  is,  in  man,  something 
anterior  to  voluntary  action,  which  is  the  ground  and  reason 
that  the  will  of  fallen  man  does  from  the  beginning  act 
wrong.  To  say  that  all  men  sin  actually,  and  entirely,  and 
universally,  and  forever,  until  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  that  against  the  strongest  possible  motives,  merely 
because  they  are  free  agents,  and  are  able  to  do  so, —  and  that 
there  is  in  their  nature,  as  affected  by  the  fall,  no  cause  or 
reason  of  the  certainty, —  is  absurd.  It  is  to  ascribe  the  most 
stupendous  concurrence  of  perverted  action  in  all  the  adult 
millions  of  mankind  to  nothing.  The  thing  to  be  accounted 
for  is  the  phenomenon  of  an  entire  series  of  universal  actual 
sin  ;  and  to  ascribe  the  universal  and  entire  obliquity  of  the 
human  will  to  the  simple  ability  of  choosing  wrong,  is  to 
ascribe  the  moral  obliquity  of  a  lost  world  to  nothing. 

This  was  the  point  of  the  controversy  in  Edwards  on  the 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  329 

Will,  against  the  Arminian  theory  o^  self-determination.  The 
free  agency  claimed  by  the  Arminian  was  one  which  excluded 
not  only  force  and  absolute  necessity  of  nature  from  deciding 
the  will,  but  denied  the  existence  of  any  internal  constitu- 
tion or  objective  injluence  of  motive^  as  connected  with  our 
constitutional  susceptibilities,  in  securing  the  existence  or 
determining  the  moral  qualities  of  choice. 

Edwards  affirmed  that  there  must  be,  and  is,  anterior  to  the 
exercise  of  free  agency,  some  constitution  of  the  agent  and 
relevancy  of  motive,  as  the  ground  and  reason  of  the  certainty 
of  choice,  though  not  a  coercive  cause ;  and  his  antagonists 
deny  that  there  is  any  canse^  ground  or  reason  of  the  cer- 
tainty of  choice,  holy  or  unholy,  in  or  out  of  man,  anterior  to 
its  existence  —  assuming  the  necessity  of  a  perfect  indifference 
of  Yv'ill  in  all  cases  immediately  anterior  to  vohtion,  and  the 
actual  uncertainty  of  choice,  as  affected  by  any  cause  or  reason 
anterior  to  its  existence ;  and  the  necessity  to  its  freedom  and 
accountability  that  in  every  case  it  should  be  the  simple, 
uninfluenced  energy  of  the  mind  itself.  And  what  Edwards 
attempts  to  prove,  and  does  prove,  in  his  treatise  on  the  Will 
and  on  original  sin,  is,  that  to  choice  of  any  kind  there  is  in 
the  agent  some  constitution  which  is  the  ground  or  reason 
that  motives  become,  not,  indeed,  the  coercive  causes,  but  the 
certain  occasions  of  volition;  and  that,  in  man,  before  the 
fall,  there  was  a  constitution  which  was  the  ground  and 
reason  of  the  unper verted  exercise  of  his  will  and  affections  in 
loving  and  obeying  God ;  and  that  by  the  fall  a  change  was 
effected  in  the  nature  of  man  anterior  to  voluntary  action 
which  is  the  cause  or  reason  of  the  universal  certainty  of  the 
perversion  of  the  will  and  affections  of  fallen  man  ;  and  that 
the  antecedents  of  perfect  actual  holiness  and  entire  actual 
sin  are  properly  denominated,  with  reference  to  those  certain 

VOL.  in.  28* 


330  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

results  in  action,  a  holy  or  an  unholy  nature  :  only  guarding, 
as  our  Confession  does,  alike  against  the  Antinomian  fatality 
of  the  will  by  force,  and  the  Arminian  self-determination, 
without  any  antecedent  constitutional  cause,  ground  or  reason, 
within  or  without. 

These  views,  as  held  by  Edwards,  and  corroborated  by  our 
oy,'n  Confession  and  the  standard  writers  of  our  Church,  com- 
prehend the  doctrine  which  I  have  always  believed  and 
preached ;  and  never  have  I  knowingly  and  intentionally,  at 
any  time,  expressed  a  sentiment,  verbally  or  in  writing,  to  the 
contrary. 

The  falseness  and  folly  of  the  common  notion  of  the  self- 
determination  of  the  mind  by  its  own  energy  of  will,  without 
any  cause  or  occasion  even,  is  sufficiently  manifest,  in  its  op- 
position to  the  possibility  of  moral  government  on  the  part  of 
God,  or  the  possibility  of  praise  or  blame  on  the  part  of  man  : 
for  moral  government  is  the  government  of  a  lawgiver,  influ- 
encing the  will  and  conduct  of  subjects  by  the  influence  of 
laws,  rewards,  punishments,  and  administration.  But  if 
nothing  may  approach  the  mind,  in  the  form  of  influence, 
having  any  tendency  to  destroy  the  dignified  indifference  of 
the  will,  or  secure  the  certainty  or  probability  even  of  volition, 
then,  though  self-government  might  exist,  the  government  of 
God  could  not ;  and  nothing  but  the  most  perfect  anarchy 
could  exist  as  the  accidental,  uncaused,  and  unoccasioned 
action  of  millions  of  independent  minds,  acting  without  any 
cause,  ground  or  reason.  Indeed,  it  would  render  choice  itself 
impossible,  as  it  supposes  a  mind  without  susceptibility  or 
desire  of  anything,  or  one  thing  more  than  another, —  a  con- 
dition of  mind  precluding  the  possibility  of  choice,  which 
always  implies  excited  desire,  and  a  prospect  of  some  gratifi- 
cation, and  without  which  man  would  be  less  capable  of  choice 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  381 

than  a  snail  or  an  oyster  :  and  even  if  he  could  choose  -with- 
out desire,  reason  or  motive,  the  offspring  of  such  a  nonde- 
script mental  anomaly  would  be  no  more  praise  or  blame 
worthy  than  the  motions  of  a  pendulum  or  the  tickings  of  a 
watch, —  uncertain  of  being  till  they  come  into  being,  and 
coming  without  any  cause,  ground,  or  reason, —  bubbles  from 
the  bottom  of  the  muddy  lake  might  as  well  be  regarded  as 
accountable  and  worthy  of  praise  or  blame,  as  the  volition  of 
men. 

I  adopt,  therefore,  with  approbation,  the  language  of  Pro- 
fessor Hodge,  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans  : 

Of  all  tlie  facts  ascertained  by  the  history  of  the  -world,  it  would  seem 
to  be  among  the  plainest  that  men  are  born  destitute  of  a  disposition  to  seek 
their  chief  good  in  God,  and  with  a  disposition  to  make  self-gratification 
the  great  end  of  their  being.  Even  reason,  conscience,  natural  affection, 
are  less  univei'sal  characteristics  of  our  fallen  race.  For  there  are  idiots 
and  moral  monsters  often  to  be  met  with  ;  but  for  a  child  of  Adam,  unin- 
fluenced by  the  special  grace  of  God,  to  delight  in  his  INIaker,  as  the  portion 
of  his  soul,  from  the  first  dawn  of  his  moral  being,  is  absolutely  without 
example  among  all  the  thousands  of  millions  of  men  who  have  inhabited 
our  world.  If  experience  can  establish  anything,  it  establishes  the  truth 
of  the  scriptural  declaration,  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh."  It 
would  seem  no  less  plain  that  this  cannot  be  the  original  and  normal 
state  of  man, —  that  human  nature  is  not  now  what  it  was  when  it  pro- 
ceeded from  the  hand  of  God.  Everything  else  which  God  has  made 
answers  the  end  of  its  being  ;  but  human  nature,  since  the  fall,  has 
uniformly  worked  badly  ;  in  no  one  instance  has  it  spontaneously  turned 
to  God  as  its  chief  good.  It  cannot  be  believed  that  God  thus  made 
man  ;  that  there  has  been  no  perversion  of  his  faculties, —  no  loss  of  some 
original  and  guiding  disposition  or  tendency  of  his  mind.  It  cannot  be 
credited  that  men  are  now  what  Adam  was,  when  he  first  opened  his  eyes 
on  the  wonders  of  creation  and  the  glories  of  God.  Reason,  scripture  and 
experience,  therefore,  all  concur  in  support  of  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Christian  world,  that  the  race  fell  in  Adam,  lost  their  original  rectitude, 
and  became  prone  to  evil  as  the  sparks  to  fly  upward. 


332  VIEWS  OP  THEOLOGY. 

But.  in  addition  to  this  argumentative  implication  of  original 
sin,  I  do,  in  the  very  passage  claimed  to  deny  it,  expressly 
allude  to  and  recognize  its  existence  as  a  reality,  only  limiting 
its  action  as  Edwards  and  our  Confession  do,  as  not  forcing 
the  TV'ill,  or  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  determining 
it  to  evil.     I  say  : 

Whatever  effect,  therefore,  the  fall  of  man  may  have  had  on  his  race,  it 
has  not  had  the  effect  to  render  it  impossible  for  man  to  love  God  reli- 
giously ;  and  whatever  may  be  the  early  constitution  of  man,  there  is 
nothing  in  it,  and  nothing  withheld  from  it,  which  renders  [actual]  dis- 
obedience unavoidable,  and  [actual]  obedience  impossible. 

Finally,  the  language  of  the  paragraph,  interpreted  by  the 
laws  of  just  exposition,  does  not  teach  or  imply  a  denial  of 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 

I  have  already  shown  that  mj^  sermon  on  the  native 
character  of  man  was  not  designed  to  have  any  reference  to 
original  sin ;  that  it  spake  only  of  the  present,  actual  condi- 
tion of  adult  mind,  and  that  the  question  how  a  man  came 
into  such  a  state  was  not  so  much  as  touched ;  that  I  was 
teaching  the  existence  of  total  depravity  against  a  wily  and 
practised  antagonist,  with  the  sole  view  of  cutting  up  his  false 
Pelagian  positions,  and  proving  total  depravity  and  the  neces- 
sity of  regeneration. 

To  comprehend  fully  the  import  of  my  language,  it  must 
be  understood  that  there  were  two  philosophical  theories  in 
respect  to  the  cause  of  adult  actual  depravity :  the  one  holding 
it  to  be  a  moral  instinct^  a  created  faculty  of  the  soiil^  as 
really  as  any  Qi\iQv  faculty ^  which  controlled  the  will  according 
to  its  moral  nature,  as  the  helm  governs  the  ship,  and  upon 
which  the  will  could  no  more  react  than  the  ship  can  react 
on   the  helm ;    the  other,  a  philosophy  which  discards  this 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  838 

instinctive,  involuntary  moral  taste,  and  substitutes  the  db^cct 
e^ciency  of  God^  for  the  creation  of  all  exercises  and  acts 
of  choice,  good  and  bad. 

These  philosophical  theories  were  prevalent  long  before  this 
controversy  arose.  The  question  concerning  original  sin  was 
not  discussed  in  my  congregation  ;  touching  that  question,  all 
was  as  quiet  as  the  sleep  of  infancy.  The  question  was  as  to 
the  voluntariness  of  the  depravity  of  adult  man.  Keep  this 
in  remembrance,  and  then  the  import  of  the  sermon  cannot  be 
misunderstood.  After  proving  that  the  depravity  of  man  is 
very  great,  I  proceed  to  say  that  it  is  voluntary ;  and  this 
doctrine  I  advance  in  opposition  to  the  philosophy  which 
represents  man's  actual  sin,  his  actual  total  depravity,  as 
being  the  necessary  coercive  result  of  a  moral  instinct,  or 
of  divine  efficiency.  The  question  was,  whether  the  selfish- 
ness and  enmity  against  God,  and  wordhness  and  pride,  which 
obstructed  evangelical  obedience  in  adult  man,  and  made 
regeneration  by  the  Spirit  indispensable,  was  a  state  of  mind 
produced  and  continued  by  a  coercive  necessity ;  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Bible  and  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the 
whole  Orthodox  Church,  I  say  —  no  !  —  but,  "  that  God  has 
endued  the  will  of  fallen  man  with  that  natural  liberty,  that 
it  is  neither  forced,  nor  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature 
determined,  to  good  or  evil."  It  is  this  nature  of  adult  man, 
in  a  state  of  personal  accountability  and  active  depravity,  that 
I  am  speaking  of,  as  the  subject  and  whole  argument  of  the 
sermon  show,  in  every  sentence  and  word  of  the  page  quoted ; 
and  it  is  of  this  total  actual  depravity  of  man,  which  makes 
regeneration  by  the  Spirit  necessary,  that  I  say  it  cannot  be 
the  product  of  ^^  an  unavoidable  necessity  ;^''  and  it  is  of 
actual  holiness  and  sin  that  I  am  speaking,  when  I  say  that  to 
the  existence  of  a  holy  or  a  sinful  nature  perception,  under- 


§34  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

standing,  conscience  and  choice,  are  indispensable.  And  is  this 
heresy  7  Does  any  one  believe  that  personal  accountability, 
and  actual  sin,  and  holiness,  can  exist  without  perception, 
understanding,  conscience,  and  choice ;  and  that  the  Bible  and 
the  Confession  of  Faith  teach  it  ? 

Dr.  Greene  says,  "  The  parties  in  this  controversy  are 
agreed  that  all  actual  sin  is  voluntary,  and  therefore  criminal 
and  inexcusable." —  Ch.  Adv.  1831,  p.  348. 

Social,  representative  liability^  and  a  just  desert  ofpunish- 
ment  in  that  seiise^  is  a  possibihty  and  a  reality :  but  a  social 
liability  J  and  2je?^so7ial  demerit,  are  quite  different  things ; 
and  if  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  that  the  Bible  and  the  Confes- 
sion do  teach  the  possibility  of  personal  actual  sin  and  just 
punishment,  without  the  existence  of  the  faculties  of  percep- 
tion, understanding,  conscience  and  choice,  it  will,  as  I  believe, 
be  regarded  by  the  whole  Church  of  God  as  a  new  discovery. 

I  call  this  actual  depravity  of  man  native,  in  accordance 
with  the  language  of  the  Bible  and  the  most  approved  theo- 
logical writers,  to  indicate  its  universality,  as  what  all  men 
come  to  by  nature, —  that  is,  by  the  operation  and  influence  of 
,that  change  produced  in  the  nature  of  man  by  the  fall, —  to 
mark  its  positiveness,  as  including  actual  enmity,  selfishness, 
pride  and  idolatry,  instead  of  a  mere  want  of  conformity  to 
the  law  of  God, —  and  especially  to  designate  its  permanence 
as  compared  to  successive  acts  of  choice,  and  its  fearful  im- 
mutability to  all  finite  power.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  the 
permanence  and  immutabihty  of  man's  actual  depravity — as  a 
heart  full  of  madness  and  of  evil  —  fully  set  to  do  evil ;  and 
Turretin  calls  it  a  "  voluntary  and  culpable  habit  of  will ;  " 
and  Edwards  says,  "By  a  general  and  habitual  moral 
inabihty  I  mean  an  inability  in  the  heart  to  all  exercises  or 
acts  of  will  of  that  nature  or  kind,  through  a  fixed  and 


^      TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  335 

habitual  mcli?iation,  or  an  habitual  or  stated  defect,  or  want 
of  a  certain  kind  of  inclination." 

Now,  not  only  has  all  I  have  said  on  the  page  objected  to, 
a  reference  to  the  actual  sin  of  adult  man  as  the  ground  of 
the  necessity  of  regeneration,  but  it  is  all  so  guarded  and  tied 
down,  and  related  to  the  subject  of  actual  sin,  that  it  can  by 
no  possibility  be  torn  away  from  it,  and  attached  to  the  subject 
of  original  sin.  For,  in  the  very  statements  I  make  about 
the  voluntary  nature  of  which  I  am  speaking,  I  allude  to  the 
fall  and  original  sin,  and  admit  and  include  its  existence 
among  the  causes  which  fortify  adult  man  against  submission 
to  God,  as  I  have  more  fully  done  in  my  exposition  of  the 
moral  inability  of  man  in  this  discussion,  only  making  the 
reservation  which  the  Confession  makes  —  that  original  sin 
does  not  force  the  will  to  actual  sin,  nor  by  any  absolute  ne- 
cessity of  nature  determine  it  to  evil,  so  as  that  God  is  the 
author  of  sin,  or  that  violence  is  offered  to  the  will  of  the  crea- 
tures; or  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  (the  power 
of  choosing  life  or  death)  taken  away,  but  is  rather  established. 

The  declarations,  that  there  is  a  time  when  actual  sin  com- 
mences, and  that  the  first  sin  is  voluntary,  uncoerced,  inex- 
cusable, and  might  have  been  and  ought  to  have  been  avoided 
as  really  as  any  of  the  actual  sins  that  followed  it,  will  not,  I 
apprehend,  alarm  any  large  proportion  of  the  Church.  The 
distinction  between  original  and  actual  sin  has  been  universal 
in  the  Orthodox  Church ;  and  the  more  common  opinion,  as  I 
suppose,  has  always  been  that  actual  sin  does  not  commence 
from  the  womb,  and  that  the  time  when  social  liability  is 
succeeded  by  personal  demerit  for  actual  transgression  is  not 
and  cannot  be  exactly  known  to  any  but  the  eye  of  God. 
What  I  have  asserted  is,  that  whenever  personal  accountability 
does  commenccj  in  the  sight  of  God  the  sinner  is  a  fi*ee  agent, 


336  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

and  inexcusable  for  bis  first  as  really  as  for  any  otber  actual 
sin. 

I  perceive  tbat  wbat  I  ^rote  ten  years  ago,  witb  my  eye 
Tvbolly  on  tbe  subject  of  man's  nature  as  an  actual  sinner  and 
totally  depraved,  read  by  a  person  at  tbe  present  time,  in  a 
state  of  alarm  and  excitement  about  tbe  Pelagian  beresy  on 
tbe  subject  of  original  sin,  migbt,  if  not  read  witb  great  care 
and  attention,  be  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  as  denying  tbat 
depravity  of  nature  wbicb  is  peculiar  to  original  sin  :  but  tbe 
moment  tbe  laws  of  candid,  correct  interpretation,  are  applied, 
tbe  possibility  of  sucb  an  interpretation  is  precluded,  and  tbe 
true  limit,  meaning,  and  intent  of  my  language,  is  made  ap- 
parent. For  it  cannot  be  tbat  a  sermon  professedly  against 
tbe  Pelagian  notions  of  virtue  and  good  works  in  man,  as 
exceptions  to  tbe  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  and  containing  a 
formal  and  labored  argument  in  tbe  defence  of  tbat  doctrine, 
and  inferring  from  it  tbe  necessity  of  regeneration,  and  an 
anti-Pelagian  instantaneous  regeneration  by  tbe  special  influ- 
ence of  tbe  Holy  Spirit,  sbould  be  found  intentionally  teaching 
tbe  very  doctrine  it  set  out  to  oppose,  and  opposing  tbe  very 
doctrine  it  was  constructed  to  establish. 

Were  any  evidence  beside  tbe  internal  evidence  of  the  dis- 
course itself  necessary,  it  is  contained  in  a  sermon  written 
about  the  same  time  that  this  sermon  on  native  character 
was  written,  and  written  professedly  on  original  sin.  The 
following  are  my  comments  on  several  passages  in  Romans  v. : 

"For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sin- 
ners."— Adam  was  created  holy  and  placed  in  a  state  of  pro- 
bation —  tbe  consequences  of  which  were  to  extend  not  only 
to  himself,  but  to  bis  posterity.  If  he  continued  holy,  they 
would  be  born  holy.  If  he  became  a  sinner,  bis  children 
would  be  born  depraved.     In  tbe  boui'  of  temptation  be  fell, 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  337 

and  LOST  FOR  A  WORLD  thc  inheritance  of  life,  and  entailed 
upon  it  the  sad  inheritance  of  depravity  and  woe. 

'Tor  if  by  one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one." — 
How  did  death  reign  by  one  man's  oifence,  if  the  depravity  of 
his  race  was  not  somehow  a  consequence  of  his  sin  ?  If  his 
posterity  arc  born  holy  (innocent),  and  became  sinners  by 
their  own  act  alone,  uninfluenced  by  what  Adam  did,  then 
death  enters  the  world  not  by  one  man,  but  by  every  man. 

''The  judgment  was  by  one  man  to  condemnation;"  that 
is,  the  sin  of  one  man,  and  one  single  act  of  sin,  subjected  his 
posterity  to  a  nature  prone  to  sin,  as  the  consequence. 

I  give  these  quotations  to  show  that  though,  when  writing 
on  the  total  actual  depravity  of  man,  my  expressions  may 
have  misled  some  to  understand  me  as  denying  original  sin, 
I  did,  at  the  same  period,  when  writing  professedly  on  that 
subject,  recognize  the  doctrine  fully  and  strongly,  and  at  the 
time  was  never,  to  my  knowledge,  misunderstood. 

What  follows  is  from  my  lecture  on  the  Fall  and  its  Con- 
sequences, delivered  in  Boston  and  Cincinnati : 

By  tlie  appointment  of  God,  the  character  and  destiny  of  man  was 
inseparably  connected  -with  thc  conduct  of  Adam.  He  was  in  such  a  sense 
thc  federal  head  and  representative  of  his  posterity,  that,  according  to 
God's  appointment,  had  Adam  continued  holy,  his  posterity  would  havo 
continued  holy,  as  his  disobedience  has  drawn  after  it  the  defections  of  the 
race.  The  univei*sal  bias  of  man  to  evil  is  denomuiated  a  depraved 
nature,  on  account  of  its  universal  tendencies  to  actual  sin. 

Here  I  might  stop ;  for  I  am  under  no  obligation  to  volun- 
teer statements  of  my  opinions  in  respect  to  the  subjects  on 
which  I  am  accused.  My  errors  are  to  be  shown  by  evi- 
dence ;  and  I  say  that,  in  this  case,  the  evidence  has  utterly 
failed ;  and  I  might,  therefore,  repel  the  charge  of  heresy,  as 
not  established.     But  I  have  no  secrets  on  this  subject,  nor 

VOL.  III.  20 


338  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

in  respect  to  any  of  the  religious  opinions  which  I  hold.  At 
my  time  of  life,  and  especially  under  the  circumstances  in 
which  I  am  placed,  both  as  pastor  of  a  flock  and  an  instructor 
of  the  rising  ministry  of  the  Church,  I  have  no  right  to  any 
secret  opinions.  I  scorn  concealment,  and  therefore  I  will 
declare  with  all  openness  the  things  which  I  do  believe.  The 
Presbytery  shall  not  suspect  me  of  being  a  heretic.  If  I  am 
a  heretic,  they  shall  know  it.  You  shall  have,  in  respect  to 
my  views  of  original  sin,  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth. 

1.  As  to  the  federal  or  representative  character  of  Adam, 
and  the  covenant  with  him  and  his  posterity.  —  I  have,  through 
my  whole  public  life,  believed  and  taught  that  the  constitu- 
tion and  character  of  his  entire  posterity,  as  perverted  or 
unperverted,  depended  on  his  obedience  or  defection  ;  and  that 
he  was  in  this  respect ^  and  by  God's  appointment,  constitu- 
tionally the  head  and  representative  of  his  race.  And  that, 
in  this  sense,  all  mankind,  descending  from  him  by  ordinary 
generation,  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first 
transgression ;  that  is,  their  character  and  destiny  were 
decided  by  his  deed. 

For  a  more  ample  expression  of  my  views,  I  submit  the 
remarks  of  Dr.  Bishop,  President  of  the  Miami  University, 
on  the  subject  of  Social  Liabilities,  the  best  name  ever 
devised  for  the  idea ;  —  a  name  which,  I  hope,  we  shall  all 
remember,  as  it  is  calculated  to  avoid  much  error  which  has 
arisen  from  the  use  of  other  phraseology.  In  respect  to  the 
book  from  which  I  am  about  to  quote,  I  heartily,  thank  that 
great  and  good  man  for  having  condensed  so  much  truth  into 
so  small  a  compass ;  and  I  do  believe  that  the  simple  substi- 
tution of  this  technic,  "social  liability,"  would  carry  us  all 
out  of  the  swamp  together.     For  we  in  fact  think,  and  ought 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  88$ 

to  speak,  tlic  same  thing.  After  illustrating  the  social  liabil- 
ities of  men,  for  the  conduct  of  others  in  the  family,  in  com- 
mercial relations,  and  as  parts  of  a  nation,  and  as  social  and 
moral  beings  affected  by  the  nameless  influences  of  the  Chris- 
tian example  or  evil  deeds  of  our  fellow-men,  he  proceeds  to 
say: 

1.  That  every  man  is,  by  his  very  nature,  intimately  connected,  in  a 
great  variety  of  ways,  with  thousands  of  his  fellow-men  whom  he  has  never 
seen  ;  and  that  the  conduct  and  the  character  of  a  single  individual  may 
have  an  extensive  and  a  lasting  influence  upon  millions  of  his  fellow-men, 
though  ftir  removed  from  him,  both  as  to  time  and  place. 

2.  That  these  liabilities  may  be  classed  under  two  general  heads, 
namely,  Natural  and  Positive.  The  son  inherits  a  diseased  or  a  healthy 
body,  and,  in  many  cases,  also  an  intellectual  or  moral  character  ;  and 
generation  after  generation  sustains  the  character  of  their  ancestors,  by 
what  may  be  called  a  natural  influence.  Like  produces  and  continues  like. 
But  in  commercial  and  political  transactions  lasting  and  important  liabili- 
ties are  created  and  continued  by  positive  arrangements. 

3.  That,  in  all  cases  of  social  liabilities,  individual  and  representative 
responsibility  are  always  kept  distinct.  Nor  is  it,  in  the  most  of  cases,  a 
very  diflicult  thing  to  have  a  clear  and  distinct  conception  of  these  two 
distinct  responsibilities. 

Every  citizen  of  these  United  States  who  thinlis  at  all  must  feel  that 
himself  and  his  children,  and  his  children's  children,  are  deeply  interested 
in  the  conduct  and  character  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the 
time  being.  An  able  and  virtuous  president,  with  an  able  and  wise  and 
faithful  cabinet,  must  be  a  great  blessing  to  the  millions,  both  the  born 
and  unborn,  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  a 
weak  and  a  wicked  president  and  cabinet  must  be  the  occasion  of  incon- 
ceivable inconveniences  and  real  privations  and  sufferings  to  countless 
millions,  both  of  the  present  and  succeeding  generations.  But  yet  no  man 
ever  thought  of  attributing  to  himself,  or  to  his  children,  the  personal  wis- 
dom, or  intellectual  ability,  or  inflexible  integrity,  which  has  marked  the 
character  of  any  distinguished  executive  officer  ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
has  he  ever  thought  of  being  charged  individually,  or  of  having  his 
children  charged  individually,  with  the  weakness  or  wickedness  of  a  bad 
executive  officer.     He  and  his  children,  and  his  neighbors  and  their  chil- 


340  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

dren,  feel  and  acknowledge  that  tliey  are  personally  and  deeply  Involved  in 
the  consequences  of  the  official  acts  of  these  men,  v?hether  these  conse- 
quences are  of  a  beneficial  or  a  hurtful  tendency  ;  but,  at  the  same  time, 
individual  and  personal  merit  and  demerit,  and  individual  and  personal 
responsibility,  are  clearly  understood,  and  never,  for  a  moment,  merged  in 
social  and  representative  transactions. 
From  a  view  of  the  above  facts  it  follows  : 

4.  That  the  terms  guilty  and  innocent  must,  with  every  thinking  man, 
be  used  in  a  different  sense,  when  they  are  applied  to  responsibilities 
incurred  by  the  conduct  of  another,  from  that  in  which  they  are  used  when 
they  are  applied  to  personal  conduct.  In  the  former  application,  guilty 
can  only  mean  liability  to  suffer  punishment^  and  innocent  to  be  not  liable. 
But  in  the  latter  application  they  mean,  having  violated,  or  having  not 
violated,  some  moral  or  positive  commandment.  In  the  one  case  the  terms 
apply  to  a  personal  act,  and  to  personal  character  ;  but  in  the  other  they 
only  mark  the  nature  and  the  consequences  of  a  certain  act  or  acts,  as 
these  consequences  are  felt  by  another  person. 

5.  In  eveiycase  of  social  liability,  unity  is  recognized.  The  individuals 
concerned  may  be  millions,  or  only  two,  and  they  may  be  in  every  other 
respect  and  bearing  distinct  and  separate  ;  but  in  the  particular  case  in 
which  liability  applies  they  are  in  law  only  one  moral  person. 

The  father  and  son,  the  ancestor  and  the  descendant,  have  only  one 
common  nature,  or  one  common  right.  In  commercial  transactions  the 
company  is  one,  though  composed  of  many  individuals  ;  and  the  nation, 
acting  by  the  constituted  authorities,  with  all  her  other  varieties  and  dif- 
ferences, while  a  nation,  continues  one  and  indivisible. 

And  here  let  me  say  that  this  principle  is  recognized  in  the 
relation  of  Adam  to  his  posterity,  and  of  theirs  to  him ;  so 
that  the  effects  which  fell  on  him  as  a  punishment  fell  on  tliem 
as  a  calamity. 

There  is,  in  my  apprehension,  something  of  this  constitu- 
tional social  liability  pervading  the  whole  moral  universe,  and 
inseparable  from  the  nature  of  mind  and  moral  government, 
and  the  effects  of  temptation,  character  and  example.  It  is 
probable  that  rational  beings,  constituted  as  they  are.  cannot 
be  brought  together  so  that  the  action  of  one  will  not  in 


TRTAT-  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  341 

some  degree  afToct  the  character  of  otiiers.  Whether  it  was  a 
positive  appointment  merely,  or  whetlicr  it  was  an  inevitable 
cficct  /lowing  from  the  nature  of  things,  or,  which  is  more 
probable,  the  united  result  of  both, —  such  was  the  constitution 
establislied  bj  (jod  between  Adam  and  his  seed  ;  so  that  if 
Adam  should  stand,  all  his  children  would  retain  their  in- 
tegrity;  but  if  he  should  fall,  they  would  fall  with  him. 
And  we  may  well  apply  to  the  fall  of  our  first  parents  the 
affecting  language  of  Mark  Antony  over  Cnesar's  body : 

"  0,  what  a  fall  was  there,  my  countrymen  ! 
Then  you,  and  I,  and  all  of  us,  fell  down." 

The  constitution  was  equally  certain  both  ways ;  and  in 
this  respect  it  was  just  and  equal.  If,  then,  it  be  asked 
whether  I  hold  that  Adam  was  the  federal  head  of  his  pos- 
terity, I  answer,  Certainly  he  was;  because  that  which  he 
did  decided  what  was  to  be  the  character  and  conduct  of  all 
his  posterity.  If  the  inquiry  is  made,  whether  I  admit  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin, —  if  imputation  be  understood  to 
mean  that  Adam's  posterity  were  present  in  him,  and  thus 
sinned  in  him, —  I  answer.  No;  and  Dr.  "Wilson  answers.  No. 
And  here  we  are  agreed.  For  if  mankind  were  present  in 
Adam,  and  in  that  sense  sinned  in  him,  who  does  not  see  that 
their  sin  was  actual^  not  original, —  jjersonal,  and  not  derived, 
or  transmitted,  or  propagated? 

Again,  if  by  original  sin  be  meant  that  Adam's  personal 
moral  qualities  were  transferred  to  his  posterity  (a  theory 
which,  like  the  other,  had  once  its  day),  I  reply  that  I  do 
not  and  cannot  believe  any  such  thing;  neither  does  Dr. 
Wilson  believe  it.  And  here  let  me  say  that  all  the  alarm 
and  all  the  odium  which  have  been  excited  in  relation  to  the 
divines  in  New  England  have  arisen  from  two  things :  their 

VOL.    ITT.  29=^ 


342  VIEWS   OF   THEOLorjY. 

opposition  to  the  notion  of  personal  identity  A\ith  Adam  ;  and 
their  denial  of  the  transfer  of  his  moral  qualities  to  his  pos- 
terity. But  neither  of  these  things  is  involved  in  the  charges 
preferred  against  me  by  Dr.  Wilson. 

Whatj  then,  is  the  true  doctrine  of  original  sin  7  It  is  the 
obnoxiousness  of  Adam's  posterity  to  the  penal  consequences 
of  his  transgression ;  to  all  that  came  in  that  stream  of  evils 
which  his  offence  let  in  upon  the  world.  The  same  change 
of  constitution,  of  nature  and  character,  which  was  wrought  in 
him  by  his  transgression,  appears  in  them  through  all  their 
generations.  This  hability,  this  exposedness  to  punishment, 
is  in  the  Confession  called  '^ guilt;  "  but  that  word,  as  then 
used,  conveyed  theologically  a  different  meaning  from  what 
is  now  usually  attached  to  the  term.  By  guilt  we  now 
understand  the  desert  of  punishment  for  personal  sin ;  but 
this  is  not  the  sense  of  the  word  in  the  Confession  of  Faith ; 
there  it  means  liability  to  evil  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin. 
This  was  another  of  the  spots  where  I  stumbled  once  at  the 
language  of  the  Confession.  I  could  not  consent  to  the 
punishment  in  my  person  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  as  if  it 
were  my  own.  To  that  I  do  not  now  consent.  That,  I  now 
beheve,  the  Confession  of  Faith  does  not  teach ;  but  I  cor,- 
dially  receive  it  as  teaching  that  Adam  was  our  representative 
indirectly:  that  on  his  breaking  God's  righteous  commands, 
the  curse,  which  fell  like  a  thunderbolt  on  the  offender,  struck 
all  his  posterity  and  all  the  animal  world,  struck  the  ground 
on  which  he  stood,  and  the  whole  world  in  which  he  dwelt. 

"Earth  felt  the  wound." 

This  social  liability  is  illustrated  in  the  fall  of  angels. 
The  influence  of  one  master  spirit  drew  away  (as  it  would 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  843 

seem,  from  some  passages  in  Scripture)  one-tliird  part  of 
the  heavenly  host.  Let  sedition  and  revolt  take  place  in  a 
nation,  —  who  gets  it  up  ?  Docs  the  entire  mass  of  the  nation 
rise  spontaneously  and  simultaneously,  by  one  common 
impulse  ?  No.  Some  leading  mind  first  fires  the  train  ;  and 
though  one-half  the  population  may  ultimately  perish  under 
the  reliction  of  the  government,  their  death  is  to  be  traced 
up  to  one  master-spirit  as  the  mover  and  promoter  of  the 
■whole  commotion.  Let  us  never  forget  the  maxim, —  it  is 
"worthy  to  be  -written  in  letters  of  gold, — "  Individual  and 
r(^presentative  responsibility  are  always  to  be  kept  distinct." 
I  adopt  this  language  of  Dr.  Bishop,  and  lay  it  in  as  an  ex- 
position of  my  own  views  with  respect  to  the  character  of 
Adam,  to  guilt  as  imputed,  and  to  punishment  as  the  conse- 
quence of  our  social  relations.  I  have  always  adopted  the 
language  of  Edwards,  as  correctly  stating  the  truth  on  this 
subject : 

In  consequence  oi  Adam's  sm,  all  mankind  do  constantly,  in  all  ages, 
•without  fail  in  any  one  instance,  rmi  into  the  moral  evil,  which  is,  in  effect, 
their  own  utter  and  eternal  ^perdition,  and  a  total  privation  of  God's  favor, 
and  suffering  of  his  vengeance  SiuJ  wrath. 

So  that  the  real  doctrine  is  not  that  Adam's  posterity  were 
one  in  personal  identity,  or  personally  guilty  by  a  transfer  of 
sinful  moral  qualities  or  actions ;  but  simply  that  a  part  of 
the  curse  of  the  law  that  fell  on  Adam  fell  indirectly  on  his 
posterity  in  the  loss  of  original  righteousness,  which  would 
have  been  their  inheritance  had  Adam  obeyed,  and  that 
change  of  the  constitution  of  human  nature  from  which 
results  the  certainty  of  entire  actual  sin.  Now,  what  the 
particular  change  was  which  furnished  the  ground  of  this 
absolute  certainty  that  all  mankind  would  run  into  sin,  I  do 


344  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

not  profess  to  understand.  Paul,  in  the  fifth  chapter  to  the 
Romans,  states  the  facts  of  the  case,  as  involving,  through 
the  fall,  a  nature  spoiled,  and  under  such  an  effectual  bias, 
that,  as  soon  as  the  mind  acts,  it  acts  wrong.  This  is  all  that 
I  can  say  touching  original  sin.  All  is  confusion  and  dark- 
ness beyond  this.  I  have  no  light,  and  pretend  to  no  knov.l- 
edge.  And  surely  there  is  no  heresy  in  ignorance.  I  always 
believed  in  original  sin,  and  that  Adam  was  the  federal  head 
of  his  posterity  ;  and  although  I  have  not  used  generally  that 
particular  phrase,  I  believe  as  much  in  the  truth  it  is  in- 
tended to  convey  as  any  man  in  the  Church.  I  believe  thnt 
God  legislated  wisely  for  Adam  ;  that  the  effects  of  his  fall 
reached  all  his  posterity,  and  produced  in  them  such  a  change 
that  the  human  mind,  which  before  obeyed,  thenceforward 
disobeyed ;  and  that,  in  consequence  of  the  change  which  took 
place  in  Adam  himself,  the  bias  to  holiness  which,  had  he 
stood,  would  have  been  the  blessed  inheritance  of  all  his  chil- 
dren, was  utterly  lost,  so  that  they  now  inherit  a  corrupt 
nature.  I  have  always  called  it  so.  I  have  expressly  denom- 
inated it  a  depraved  nature.  I  believe  they  inherit  this  not 
as  actual  personal  sin ;  that  it  comes  upon  them  not  as  a 
punishment  of  their  personal  s.'xi,  but  as  a  political  evil  would 
come  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States  from  the  evil 
conduct  of  the  chi^f  magistrate.  In  a  word,  that  we  share 
the  character  of.  our  fallen  progenitor,  and  all  the  deplorable 
effects  of  his  transgression. 

The  following  additional  quotations  will  show  that  these 
views  are  the  received  doctrines  of  the  Church : 

Turretin  (as  quoted  by  Hodge  on  Romans),  Theol.  Elench.  Qucsst. 
IX.  p.  678,  says  :  "  Imputation  is  either  of  something  foreign  to  us,  or  of 
something  properly  our  own.  Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to  us  which  is 
personally  ours  ;  in  which  sense  God  imputes  to  sinners  their  transgres- 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  345 

sions.  Sometimes  tliat  is  imputed  which  is  without  us,  and  not  performed 
by  ourselves  ;  thus  the  righteousness  of  Clirist  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  us, 
and  our  sins  are  imputed  to  him,  altliough  he  has  neither  sin  in  himself,  nor 
we  righteousness.  Here  wc  speak  of  the  latter  kind  of  imputation,  not  the 
former  ;  because  we  are  treating  of  a  sin  committed  by  Adam,  not  by  us." 
The  ground  of  this  imputation  is  the  union  between  Adam  and  his  posterity. 
This  union  is  not  a  mysterious  identity  of  person,  but,  1.  "  Natural,  as  he 
is  the -father,  and  we  are  tlic  children.  2.  Political  and  forensic,  as  he  was 
the  representative  liead  and  chief  of  the  whole  human  race.  The  foundation, 
therefore,  of  imputation,  is  not  only  the  natural  connection  which  exists 
between  us  and  Adam,  since,  in  that  case,  all  his  sins  might  be  imputed  to 
us,  but  mainly  the  moral  and  federal,  in  virtue  of  which  God  entered  into 
covenant  witli  him  as  our  head," 

TucKNEY  {Pralcctiones,  p.  234)  :  "We  are  counted  righteous  through 
Christ  in  the  same  manner  that  we  are  counted  guilty  through  Adam. 
The  latter  is  by  imputation  ;  therefore,  also,  the  former."  *'  We  are  not  so 
foolish  or  blasphemous  as  to  say,  or  even  to  think,  that  the  imputed  right- 
eousness of  Christ  makes  us  formally  and  subjectively  righteous." 

Owen  (in  his  Avork  on  Justification,  p!  230)  says  :  "Things  which  are 
not  our  own  originally,  inherently,  may  yet  be  imputed  to  us,  txjustitia, 
by  the  rule  of  righteousness.  And  this  may  be  done  upon  a  double  relation 
unto  those  whose  they  are,  —  1.  Federal ;  2.  Natural.  Things  done  by  one 
may  be  imputed  unto  others,  propter  relationem  faderalem,  because  of  a 
covenant  relation  between  them.  So  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed  to  all  his 
posterity.  And  the  ground  hereof  is,  that  we  stood  in  the  same  covenant 
with  him  who  was  our  head  and  representative."  On  p.  242  he  says, 
"  This  imputation  (of  Christ's  righteousness)  is  not  the  transmission  or 
transfusion  of  the  righteousness  of  another  into  them  which  are  to  be  jus- 
tified, that  they  should  become  perfectly  and  inherently  righteous  thereby. 
For  it  is  impossible  that  the  righteousness  of  one  should  be  transfused  into 
another,  to  become  his  subjectively  and  inherently."  Again,  p.  307: 
"  As  we  arc  made  guilty  by  Adam's  actual  sin,  which  is  not  inherent  in 
us,  but  only  imputed  to  us,  so  we  are  made  righteous  by  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  which  is  not  inherent  in  us,  but  only  imputed  tons."  On  p.  4G8 
he  says,  "  Nothing  is  intended  by  the  imputation  of  sin  unto  any,  but  the 
rendering  them  justly  obnoxious  unto  the  punishment  due  unto  that  sin. 
As  the  not  imputing  of  sin  is  the  freeing  of  men  from  being  subject  or  liable 
to  punishment."     It  is  one  of  his  standing  declarations,  "To  ha  alkufz 


346  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

culpa  reus  (that  is,  to  be  guilty  of  another's  crime)   makes  no  man  a 

SINNER." 

Knapp  (in  his  Lectures  on  Theology,  sect.  76)  says,  in  stating  what  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  is  :  "  God's  imputing  the  sin  of  our  first  parents 
to  their  descendants  amounts  to  this  :  God  punishes  the  descendants  on 
account  of  the  sin  of  their  first  parents."  This  he  gives  as  a  mere  histor- 
ical statement  of  the  nature  of  the  doctrine,  and  the  form  in  which  its 
advocates  maintained  it. 

Zachaei^  {Bib.  Theologie,  vol.  ii.  p.  394)  says,  "  If  God  allows  the 
punishment  which  Adam  incurred  to  come  on  all  his  descendants,  he 
imputes  his  sin  to  them  all.  And  in  this  sense  Paul  maintains  that  the  sin 
of  Adam  is  imputed  to  all,  because  the  punishment  of  the  one  offence  of 
Adam  has  come  upon  all. ' ' 

Bretschneider,  when  stating  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers,  as  pre- 
sented in  the  various  creeds  published  under  their  authority,  says  that 
they  regarded  justification,  which  includes  the  idea  of  imputation,  as  a 
forensic  or  judicial  act  of  God,  by  which  the  relation  of  man  to  God,  and 
not  the  man  himself,  was  changed.  And  imputation  of  righteousness  they 
described  as  "  That  judgment  of  God,  according  to  which  he  treats  us  as 
though  we  had  not  sinned,  but  had  fulfilled  the  law,  or  as  though  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  was  ours."  This  view  of  justification  they  con- 
stantly maintained,  in  opposition  to  the  Papists,  who  regarded  it  as  a 
moral  change,  consisting  in  what  they  called  the  infusion  of  righteous- 
ness. 

I  shall  now  show  that  this  is  the  view  entertained  by  the 
Professors  of  the  Princeton  Seminary : 

"  What  we  deny,  therefore,  is,  first,  that  this  doctrine  involves  any  mys- 
terious union  with  Adam,  any  confusion  of  our  identity  with  his,  so  that 
his  act  was  properly  and  personally  our  act ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  moral 
turpitude  of  that  sin  was  transferred  from  him  to  us,  — we  deny  the  possi- 
bility of  any  such  transfer.  These  are  the  two  ideas  which  the  Spectator 
and  others  consider  as  necessarily  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  imputation, 
and  for  rejecting  which  they  represent  us  as  having  abandoned  the  old 
doctrine  on  the  subject." 

"  The  words  ^ui7f  and  punishment  are  those  particularly  referred  to. 
The  former  we  had  defined  to  be  liability  or  exposedness  to  punishment. 
We  did  not  mean  to  say  that  the  word  never  included  the  idea  of  moral 
turpitude  or  criminality.     We  were  speaking  of  its  theological  usage.     It  is 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  347 

very  possible  tliat  a  word  may  have  one  sense  in  common  life,  and  another 
somewhat  nioditied  in  particuUir  sciences." 

•'  Punishment,  according  to  our  views,  is  an  evil  inflicted  on  a  person, 
in  the  execution  of  a  judicial  sentence,  on  account  of  sin.  That  the  word 
is  used  in  this  sense,  for  evils  thus  inflicted  on  one  person  for  the  oflence 
of  another,  cannot  be  denied.  It  would  be  easy  to  fill  a  volume  with  exam- 
ples of  this  usage."  —  Biblical  Repertory,  pp.  340,  440,  441. 

IIoDGE  ON  lluMANs.  —  The  doctrinc  of  imputation  is  clearly  taught  in 
this  passage.  This  doctrine  does  not  include  the  idea  of  a  mysterious  iden- 
tity of  Adam  and  his  race,  nor  that  of  a  transfer  of  the  moral  turpitude  of 
his  sin  to  his  descendants.  It  does  not  teach  that  his  offence  was  person- 
ally or  properly  the  sin  of  all  men,  or  that  his  act  was,  in  any  mysterious 
sense,  the  act  of  his  posterity.  Neither  does  it  imply,  in  reference  to  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  that  his  righteousness  becomes  personally  and 
inherently  ours,  or  that  his  moral  excellence  is  in  any  way  transferred 
from  him  to  believers.  The  sin  of  Adam,  therefore,  is  no  ground  to  us  of 
remorse,  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  no  ground  of  self-complacency 
in  those  to  whom  it  is  imputed.  This  doctrine  merely  teaches,  that  in 
Virtue  of  the  union,  representative  and  natural,  between  Adam  and  his 
posterity,  his  sin  is  the  ground  of  their  condemnation,  that  is,  of  their 
subjection  to  penal  evils  ;  and  that,  in  virtue  of  the  union  between  Christ 
and  his  people,  his  righteousness  is  the  ground  of  their  justification.  —  p. 
221. 

Whatever  evil  the  Scriptures  represent  as  coming  upon  us  on  account 
of  Adam,  they  rejrard  as  penal ;  they  call  it  death,  which  is  the  general 
ifrm  by  which  any  penal  evil  is  expressed. 

It  is  not,  however,  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  nor  of  the  Reformed 
churches,  nor  of  our  standards,  that  the  corruption  of  nature  of  which  they 
speak  is  any  depravation  of  the  soul,  or  an  essential  attribute,  or  the  infu- 
sion of  any  positive  evil.  "  Original  sin,"  as  the  confessions  of  the  Reform- 
ers maintain,  "  is  not  the  substance  of  man,  neither  his  soul  nor  body  ;  nor 
is  it  anything  infused  into  his  nature  by  Satan,  as  poison  is  mixed  with 
wine  ;  it  is  not  an  essential  attribute,  but  an  accident,  that  is,  something 
which  does  not  exist  of  itself,  an  incidental  quality,  &c."  —  Brctschncidcr, 
vol.  ir.  p.  30.  These  confessions  teach  that  original  rigliteousness,  as  a 
punishment  of  Adam's  sin,  was  lost,  a7^f/  by  that  defect  the  tendency  to 
sin,  or  cori-upt  disposition,  or  corruption  of  nature,  is  occasioned.  Though 
they  speak  of  original  sin  as  being,  first,  negative,  that  is,  the  loss  of  right- 
eousness ;  and,  secondly,  positive,  or  corruption  of  nature, — yet  by  the 


348  VIEWS    (JY   THEOLOGY. 

latter,  they  state,  is  to  be  understood,  not  the  infusion  of  anything  in  itself 
sinful,  but  an  actual  tendency  or  disposition  to  evil,  resulting  from  the 
loss  of  righteousness.  —  pp.  229,  230. 

We  derive  from  Adam  a  nature  destitute  of  any  native  tendency  to  tlie 
love  and  service  of  God  ;  and  since  the  soul,  from  its  nature,  is  filled,  as  it 
Tvere,  with  susceptibilities,  dispositions,  or  tendencies  to  certain  modes  of 
acting,  or  to  objects  out  of  itself,  if  destitute  of  the  governing  tendency  or 
disposition  to  holiness  and  God,  it  has,  of  course,  a  tendency  to  self-gratifi- 
cation and  sin.  —  p.  231. 

I  now  refer  to  a  judicial  decision  of  the  General  Assembly, 
in  the  case  of  Mr.  Balch. 

The  transferring  of  personal  sin  or  righteousness  has  never  been  held  by 
Calvinistic  divines,  nor  by  any  person  in  our  Church,  as  fiir  as  is  known  to 
us.  But,  with  regard  to  his  (Mr.  B.'s)  doctrine  of  original  sin,  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  he  is  erroneous  in  representing  personal  corruption  as  not 
dei'ived  from  Adam  ;  making  Adam's  sin  to  be  imputed  to  his  posterity  in 
consequence  of  a  corrupt  nature  already  possessed,  and  derived  from  we 
know  not  what ;  thus  in  effect  setting  aside  the  idea  of  Adam's  being  the 
federal  head  or  representative  of  his  descendants,  and  the  whole  doctrine 
of  the  covenant  of  works.  — Assembly^  Digest,  p.  130. 

My  next  authority  is  Dr.  Wilson  himself. 

Let  us  guard  here  against  some  mistakes.  The  doctrine  of  a  union  of 
representation  does  not  involve  in  it  the  idea  of  personal  identity.  It  does 
not  mean  that  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  the  same  identical  persons. 
It  does  not  mean  that  his  act  was  properly  .and  personally  then*  act.  Nor 
does  it  mean  that  the  moral  turpitude  of  Adam's  sin  was  transferred 
to  his  descendants.  The  transfer  of  moral  character  makes  no  part  of  the 
doctrine  of  imputation. 

And  now,  supposing  this  to  be  the  just  and  true  intent  of 
the  terms,  as  indicated  by  the  established  laws  of  exposition, 
and  confirmed  by  the  standard  writers  of  our  Church,  ac- 
quiesced in  and  corroborated  by  her  highest  judicature,  then  I 
beheve  and  teach  that  ''Adam  being  the  root  of  all  mankind, 
the  guilt  of  his  sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  -n  sin 


TllIAL   LEFOKE    PRESBYTERY.  *  349 

and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  his  posterity,  descending 
from  liira  })y  ordinary  generation  :  "  that  from  ''  this  original 
corruption,  ^vhcrcby  we  arc  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and 
made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  -wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do 
proceed  all  actual  transgressions;  and  that  the  covenant  being 
made  with  Adam,  not  only  for  himself  but  for  his  posterity, 
all  mankind,  descending  from  him  by  ordinary  generation, 
sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression;  " 
that  the  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell  consists 
in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  ^Yant  of  original  righteous- 
ness, and  the  corruption  of  his  whole  nature,  which  is  com- 
monly called  original  sin,  together  with  all  actual  transgres- 
sions which  proceed  from  it ;  and  that  by  the  fall  of  our  first 
parents  "all  mankind  lost  communion  with  God,  are  under 
his  wrath  and  curse,  and  so  made  liable  to  all  the  miseries  of 
this  life,  to  death  itself,  and  to  the  pains  of  hell  forever." 

I  believe  also,  and  always  have  believed  and  taught,  that 
infants  are  the  subjects  of  original  sin,  and,  as  distinguished 
from  actual  sin,  consisting  in  the  ''  influence  of  a  prevailing 
effectual  tendency  in  their  nature"  to  actual  sin  ;  and  that, 
on  account  of  this  prevalent  tendency,  it  is,  in  the  Bible,  the 
Confession,  and  the  common  language  of  men,  justly  denomi- 
nated a  depraved  nature  ;  and  that,  being  thus  depraved,  and 
considered  in  their  social  liabiHties  as  one  with  Adam,  they, 
no  more  than  adults,  could  be  saved  without  an  atonement  and 
the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration,  to 
overcome  and  remove  this  bias  to  evil  of  original  corruption, 
and  secure  the  unperverted  exercise  of  their  voluntary  powers 
in  spiritual  obedience,  and  ultimately  be  prepared  for  perfect 
conformity  to  the  will  of  God  in  heaven.  I  scarce  ever 
attended  the  funeral  of  an  infant  without  an  express  recog- 
nition,of  these  views  upon  infant  depravity,  and  the  atonement 

VOL.  III.  30 


350  VIEWS   OF  TUEOLOGY. 

and  regeneration  as  the  only  ground  of  hope  that  they  are 
saved. 

I  close  this  discussion  in  respect  to  original  sin  mth.  the 
following  concise  epitome  of  my  own  views,  which,  as  I  under- 
stand and  believe,  have  been  and  are  the  received  doctrines  of 
the  Church  of  God  in  every  age  : 

1.  Original  sin  is  the  efiect  of  Adam's  sin  upon  the  consti- 
tution of  his  race,  in  consequence  of  his  being  their  federal 
head  and  representative  by  a  divine  appointment  or  covenant. 

2.  It  does  not  consist  in  the  sinfulness  of  matter,  according 
to  the  Gnostics,  or  in  the  sinfulness  of  the  soul's  essence, 
according  to  the  Manicheans  :  but 

3.  It  consists  in  the  perversion  of  those  constitutional 
powers  and  susceptibilities  which  in  Adam  before  the  fall 
eventuated  in  actual  and  perfect  obedience,  and  which  in  their 
perverted  condition  by  the  fall  eventuate  in  actual  and  total 
depravity. 

4.  It  is  in  its  nature  involuntary ;  and  yet,  though  certain 
and  universal  in  its  influence  to  pervert  the  will  and  affections, 
does  neither  force  the  will,  nor  by  an  absolute  necessity  of 
nature  determine  it  to  evil,  or  impair  obligation,  or  excuse 
actual  sin.  It  descends  from  Adam,  by  natural  generation, 
through  all  the  race. 

It  is  a  bias  or  tendency  of  nature  to  actual  sin,  which 
baffles  all  motives  and  all  influence  short  of  Omnipotence,  to 
prevent  its  eventuation  in  total  actual  depravity,  or  to  restore 
the  perverted  will  and  afiections  to  holy  obedience. 

It  is  this  bias  to  evil,  the  efiect  of  the  fall,  which,  though 
impaired  by  regeneration,  is  not  annihilated,  but  remains  in  the 
regenerate, —  which,  combined  with  the  habits  of  actual  sin, 
constitutes  the  law  in  the  members  warring  against  the  law  of 
the  mind,  preventing,  until  the  soul  at  death  is  made  meet 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  851 

for  heaven,  the  unbiased  and  unpervcrted  exercise  of  the  "will 
and  affections,  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  moral  law. 

It  is  denominated  by  Edwards,  and  justly,  an  exceedingly 
evil  and  depraved  nature,  as  being  in  all  its  tendencies  and  all 
its  actual  results  adverse  to  the  law ;  and  on  the  ground  of 
our  alliance  with  Adam,  our  federal  head,  and  our  social 
liability,  it  results  in  that  choice  and  cliaracter  which  deserve 
God's  wrath  and  curse,  including  the  evils  of  the  life  that  now 
is,  death  itself,  and  the  pains  of  hell  forever. 

Such,  on  the  subject  of  Original  Sin,  are  the  views  which  I 
have  always  held  and  taught  since  I  have  been  in  the  ministry ; 
nor  has  any  evidence  been  produced  that  I  have  ever  at  any 
time  believed  or  taught  the  contrary.  The  entire  evidence 
relied  on  is  a  misapprehension  and  misinterpretation  of  the 
passage  adduced  from  my  sermon ;  and  there  is  now  no 
evidence,  not  a  syllable  of  evidence,  to  sustain  the  charge. 
Should  it  be  inquired  why  I  did  not  explain  my  views  on 
original  sin,  and  the  misconceptions  of  my  discourse,  to  Dr. 
Wilson,  as  I  have  now  done,  and  save  ourselves  and  the 
Church  the  affliction  and  annoyance  of  such  a  controversy,  I 
answer  that  I  often  assured  Dr.  Wilson  that  he  misunderstood 
my  views  and  communications  on  that  subject,  and  requested 
him,  respectfully  and  earnestly,  three  or  four  times,  to  permit 
me  to  make  the  requisite  explanations,  and  was  as  often  refused. 

On  the  subject  of  Total  Depravity  my  doctrine,  and  the 
evidence  relied  on  for  its  support,  are  sufficiently  manifest  in 
the  sermon  on  the  Native  Character  of  Man.* 

It  includes  the  absence  of  all  holiness, —  the  want  of  con- 
formity unto,  and  the  actual  transgression  of  the  law  of  God. 

It  is  universal  —  there  being  not  a  mere  man,  of  all  the 
millions  of  Adam's  posterity,  that  hath  lived  and  not  sinned. 

*  Vide  page  53. 


352  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

It  is  entire  ;  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  the  heart 
being  evil  only, —  there  being  none  that  do  good, — no,  not  one. 

It  is  positive  —  as  including  the  actual  preference  of  the 
creature  to  the  Creator,  which  is  enmity  against  God. 

It  is  voluntary  —  though  occasioned  by  original  sin,  the 
will  is  not  forced,  nor  by  any  necessity  determined  to  good  or 
evil.  But,  though  voluntary,  with  the  possibility  of  turning 
to  God,  it  is  spontaneously  immutable  to  any  motive  but  the 
Word  of  God  made  effectual  by  his  Spirit. 

It  was  this  ^dew  of  total  depravity,  excluding  all  native  virtue 
from  the  heart,  motives,  words,  and  deeds  of  man,  which  pro- 
duced the  reaction  that  occasioned  the  sermon  on  the  native 
character  of  man. 

I  taught,  with  the  Confession,  that  ''works  done  by  unre- 
generate  men,  although,  for  the  matter  of  them,  they  may  be 
things  which  God  commands,  and  of  good  user  both  to  them- 
selves and  others ;  yet,  because  they  proceed  not  from  a  heart 
purified  by  faith,  nor  are  done  in  a  right  manner  according  to 
the  Word,  nor  to  a  right  end, —  the  glory  of  God, —  they  are 
therefore  sinful,  and  cannot  please  God,  or  make  a  man  meet 
to  receive  grace  from  God.  And  yet  their  neglect  of  them  is 
more  sinful,  and  displeasing  unto  God." 

It  is  a  doctrine  which,  in  various  forms,  I  have  explained, 
and  proved,  and  preached,  and  applied,  more  than  any  other, 
as  being  especially  the  one  by  which  the  commandment  comes 
and  sin  revives. 

In  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  Regeneration,  or  Effectual 
Calling,  I  am  not  apprized,  precisely,  what  is  the  form  of 
error  Avhich  I  am  supposed  to  hold.  But,  if  it  be  the  Pelagian, 
as  I  conclude  from  the  analogy  of  my  supposed  heresy  on  the 
subject  of  original  sin,  it  must  be  that  I  deny  that  regenera- 


BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  353 

tion  is  a  radical  cliangc  of  character ;  but  that  it  is  in  any 
special  sense  a  ^York  of  God,  save  only  as  he  has  provided  the 
instruction  and  motives  Avhich,  by  their  natural  influence  and 
human  endeavor,  produce  religion ;  and,  of  course,  that  I 
assert  regeneration  to  be  a  gradual,  and  not  an  instantaneous 
chani]^e. 

To  all  such  apprehensions  I  reply,  that  nothing  can  be 
more  contrary  to  the  entire  course  of  my  faith  and  teaching 
on  the  subject,  as  all  the  Churches  know  which  have  been 
successively  under  my  pastoral  care,  and  all  men  who  have 
attended  my  ministry  with  sufficient  constancy  to  receive  the 
image  and  body  of  my  preaching.  There  is  no  subject,  beside 
the  kindred  one  of  total  depravity,  which  I  have  dwelt  upon 
with  such  copiousness  of  explanation,  proofs,  and  earnest 
application, —  line  upon  line,  in  season  and  out  of  season, — 
as  the  subject  of  regeneration;  insomuch  that  my  stated 
hearers  would  as  soon  think  of  suspecting  me  of  atheism  as- 
of  Pelagianism,  on  the  subject  of  rcgenen^ation. 

That  I  have  not  been  fully  understood  on  a  single  point,  I 
perceive ;  but  that  I  shall  be  understood,  and  understood  as 
teaching  the  doctrine  in  accordance  with  the  Bible,  and  the 
Confession,  and  the  generally  received  opinion  of  the  Orthodox 
Church,  I  have  a  comfortable  hope. 

I  am  aware  that  a  man's  simple  professions,  when  under 
suspicion  of  heresy,  are  but  a  poor  defence  against  the  amplifi- 
cations of  imagination  and  fear,  especially  when  divisions  and 
tumults  and  swellings  exist ;  there  may  be  for  a  season 
little  to  choose  between  being  suspected  of  heresy,  and  being 
guilty  of  it.  Instead,  therefore,  of  making  mere  declarations 
of  my  belief,  I  shall  state  and  illustrate  my  views  on  the 
several  topics  belonging  to  the  subject  of  regeneration,  as  I 

VOL.  III.  30* 


354  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

have  been  accustomed  to  state  them  in  my  discourses  from  the 
pulpit,  and  in  my  lectures  to  the  students  under  my  care. 

These  topics  are  : 

1.  The  nature ; 

2.  The  efficient  cause ; 

3."  The  effectual  means  ;  and 

4.  The  necessity  of  regeneration. 

1.  The  Nature  of  Regeneration.  —  By  this  I  mean 
the  nature  of  the  change  which  is  produced  in  the  subject  by 
the  Spirit  of  God.  This,  according  to  my  understanding  of 
the  Bible,  is  correctly  disclosed  in  the  doctrine  of  effectual 
calling  as  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms, 
as  including  "the  enlightening  of  the  minds  of  men  spiritu- 
ally and  savingly  to  understand  the  things  of  God,  taking 
away  their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  a  heart  of  flesh, — 
renewing  their  wills,  and  determining  them  to  that  which  is 
good,  and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ, —  yet  so 
as  they  come  freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace, —  in 
his  accepted  time  inviting  and  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ 
by  his  word  and  Spirit, —  so  as  they  (although  in  themselves 
dead  in  sin)  are  hereby  made  willing  and  able  truly  to  answer 
his  call,  and  to  accept  and  embrace  the  grace  offered  and  con- 
veyed therein;  "  or,  as  the  Shorter  Catechism  teaches,  more 
concisely,  and  with  no  less  correctness : 

Effectual  calling  is  the  work  of  God's  Spirit,  whereby,  convincing  us  of 
our  sin  and  misery,  enlightening  our  minds  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  and 
renewing  our  wills,  he  doth  persuade  and  enable  us  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ, 
freely  offered  us  in  the  Gospel. 

The  substance  of  what  is  taught  by  this  various  phrase- 
ology is,  that  a  change  is  effected  in  regeneration  in  respect  to 
man's  chief  end^  in  turning  from  the  supreme  love  of  self  t 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  855 

the  supreme  love  of  God, —  from  gratifying  and  exalting  self, 
to  gratifying  and  exalting  God, —  a  giving  up  and  turning 
from  the  world,  in  all  its  pomp  and  vanities,  as  the  chief  good, 
and  returning  to  God  as  the  chosen  portion  of  the  soul ; 
•withdrawing  the  affections  from  things  below,  and  setting 
them  on  things  above  ;  ceasing  to  lay  up  our  treasure  on 
earth,  and  laying  it  up  in  heaven  ;  and  so  grieving  for  and 
hating  our  past  sins,  as  that  we  turn  from  them  all  to  God, 
purposing  and  endeavoring  to  walk  with  God  in  all  the  ways 
of  new  obedience. 

This,  it  will  not,  I  think,  be  doubted,  comprehends  cor- 
rectly the  moral  change  which  takes  place  in  regeneration. 

2.  The  author  or  efficient  cause  of  regeneratiox  is 
God.  By  efficient  cause  I  mean  that  power  without  which  all 
other  influence  is  vain,  and  by  which  means  otherwise  impo- 
tent are  made  effectual.  The  power,  then,  which  in  all  cases 
is  the  immediate  antecedent  and  effectual  cause  of  regeneration, 
is  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  called  the 
Holy  Spirit,  not  by  way  of  any  preeminent  personal  excel- 
lence, but  as  the  divine  agent  to  whom  is  committed  the  work 
of  commencing  and  perfecting  holiness  in  the  hearts  of  men. 

That  God  is  the  efficient  cause  of  regeneration,  is  plainly 
taught  in  the  text,  and  throughout  the  Bible,  in  the  various 
forms  of  metaphor,  direct  testimony,  and  multiplied  implica- 
tions. Is  moral  pollution  in  the  way, —  "I  will  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean."  Is  stupidity 
and  insensibility  the  impediment  to  be  removed, —  "  I  will 
take  away  the  stony  heart  and  give  a  heart  of  flesh."  Is  the 
condition  of  man  represented  by  the  battle-field,  a  capacious 
valley  whitened  with  bones, —  it  is  God  who  says  unto  these 
bones,  "Behold,  I  will  cause  breath  to  enter  into  3'ou,  and  ye 
shall  live."    Is  it  the  helplessness  of  infancy  abandoned  in  the 


356  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

open  field,  "with  no  eje  to  pity,  or  arm  to  save, —  it  is  God  who 
"  passes  by  and  bids  us  live."  Is  it  darkness  which  impedes 
our  salvation, —  it  is  "  God  who  commandeth  the  light  to 
shine  out  of  darkness,  who  shines  in  our  hearts."  Is  death 
the  calamity, —  a  resurrection  is  the  remedy  :  "  You  hath  he 
quickened  who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  and  raised  us 
up  to  sit  together  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ."  Is  it  the 
annihilation  of  spiritual  life, —  regeneration  is  a  new  creation, 
"  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works."  Is  it  the 
old  man  who  makes  resistance  to  the  claims  of  God, —  the 
regenerated  are  said  to  be  "born  again,  not  of  blood,"  that 
is,  not  by  natural  descent,  "nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh," 
the  striving  and  efibrts  of  sinners  to  save  themselves,  "  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,"  the  efforts  of  men  to  save  their  fellow-men, 

"  but  of  God;    WHOSOEVER  LOVETH  IS  BORN  OF  GOD." 

The  power  of  God  concerned  in  regeneration  is 

SUPERNATURAL.      It  is  SO, 

(1.)  As  compared  with  the  power  of  any  created  agent, 
man  or  angel. 

(2.)  It  IS  SUPERNATURAL,  as  above  the  power  of  any  law 
of  nature,  or  natural  efficacy  of  truth  or  motive,  in  the  ordi- 
nary operation  of  cause  and  effect,  natural  or  moral. 

(3.)  It  IS  SUPERNATURAL,  as  distinguished  from  the  stated 
operations  of  divine  power,  which  are  concerned  in  upholding 
all  things,  and  guiding  them  in  the  stated  order  of  cause  and 
effect  to  their  results,  as  earth  and  air,  and  rain  and  sun- 
shine, produce  vegetation,  and  cause  harvests  to  wave  in  the 
field. 

(4.)  It  is  SUPERNATURAL,  as  being  an  interposition  to 
accomplish  unfailingly  a  change  in  the  will  and  affections  of 
men,  which  never  takes  place  without  it.     And, 

(5.)   It  is   supernatural,   as   it  is   an   act  of  God's 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  357 

ALMIGHTY  POWER, —  as  rcally  SO  as  tlic  creation  of  worlds,  or 
tlic  resurrection  of  the  dead. 

The  question  has  been  started,  whether  God  is  able  to 
regenerate  any  more  than  he  does.  Unquestionably,  so  far 
as  sufficient  power  is  concerned,  he  is  able  to  subdue  all 
tilings  to  himself  The  limitation  in  respect  to  the  applica- 
tion of  redemption  is  not  one  of  impotency,  but  a  limitation 
of  the  unerring  wisdom  and  infinite  benevolence  of  God, —  the 
limitation  of  doing  always  and  only,  in  the  administration  of 
grace,  that  which  seemeth  good  in  his  sight,  and  is  right  and 
best.  The  discriminations  of  his  justice  and  grace  are  volun- 
tary. So  far  as  his  power  is  concerned,  he  is  as  able  to 
subdue  the  wills  of  rebels  as  to  control  the  elements.  In  his 
moral  kingdom  he  is  as  truly  the  Lord  God  omnipotent, 
working  all  things  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  will,  as  he 
is  in  the  government  of  the  natural  universe.  He  has  placed 
nothing  which  he  has  made  beyond  the  reach  of  his  power ; 
and  he  has  made  nothing  which  he  cannot  and  does  not  gov- 
ern, according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  The  power  of 
God  in  regeneration  is  represented  as  among  the  greatest  dis- 
plays of  his  omnipotence  ever  made,  or  to  be  made,  in  the 
history  of  the  universe.  When  this  fair  creation  rose  fresh  in 
beauty  from  the  hand  of  God,  the  morning  stars  sang  together, 
and  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy ;  but  sweeter  songs 
will  celel)rate  and  louder  shouts  attend  the  consummation  or 
redemption,  by  the  power  of  God's  Spirit ;  and  such  brighter 
glories  of  God,  and  higher  illustrations  of  his  power,  will  be 
manifested  to  principalities  and  powers  by  the  Church,  as  will 
cause  the  light  of  his  glory  in  physical  creation  to  go  out  ai^ 
be  forgotten,  as  the  stars  flide  and  are  lost  amid  the  splendors 
of  the  sun.  It  is  the  united  glory  of  God's  power  and  good- 
ness in  redemption,  and  not  the  wonders  of  physical  creation. 


358  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

which  inspires  and  perpetuate  forever  around  his  throne  the 
voice  of  praise,  as  the  sound  of  many  waters  and  mighty 
thunderings,  to  Him  who  loved  us,  and  died  for  us,  and  washed 
us  in  his  blood,  and  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God. 

The  effect  of  this  divine  interposition  is  instantaneous  —  in 
a  moment,  in  the  twinkhng  of  an  eye.  It  must  be  instanta- 
neous, from  the  nature  of  the  case.  If  man  is  an  idolater, 
there  must  be  a  time  when  he  gives  the  idol  up  for  God ;  if 
an  enemy,  there  must  be  a  time  when  he  becomes  reconciled ; 
if  without  holy  love,  there  must  be  a  time  when  it  begins  to 
warm  the  heart. 

The  graces  of  the  Spirit  admit  not  of  a  progressive  creation ; 
love  or  enmity,  penitence  or  impenitence,  faith  or  unbelief, 
are  the  only  positive  conditions  of  the  human  mind.  There 
is  no  state  between  them.  There  is  and  can  be  no  such  thing 
as  love,  or  repentance,  or  faith,  half  formed,  and  progressive 
to  a  completion. 

There  are  persons,  however,  of  some  seriousness,  who  seem 
desirous  to  approximate  to  evangelical  belief  on  the  subject  of 
regeneration,  who  admit  the  necessity  of  a  change  in  human 
character  in  some  degree  like  that  which  we  have  described, 
only  it  is  not  wholly  new,  but  the  result  of  the  progressive 
culture  of  the  human  powers  by  divine  aid ;  and  since  on  both 
sides,  we  believe,  they  say,  in  the  necessity  of  holiness,  what 
difference  does  it  make  whether  it  comes  from  old  principles 
or  new,  or  whether  the  work  is  instantaneous  or  progressive  7 

Whatever  might  be  thought  beforehand,  the  difference  in 
experience  between  a  behef  in  instantaneous  or  progressive 
regeneration  is  manifest  and  great.  The  latter  assumes  fal- 
lacious and  dangerous  views  of  human  nature,  as  including 
some  seed  of  virtue,  or  principle  of  light  and  life,  which  needs 
only  cultivation  to  bring  it  up  to  the  maturity  of  holiness ;  is 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  359 

associated,  also,  with  false  views  of  holiness,  as  consisting  in 
some  nondescript,  mystical  goodness,  which  grows  impercepti- 
bly under  culture,  as  the  harvest  rises  under  rain  and  sunshine. 

It  legitimates  as  virtues,  efficacious  to  save,  all  those 
grounds  of  fallacious  hope  which  I  have  already  named, — 
quelling  fear,  preventing  a  sense  of  sin,  and  creating  hope 
built  upon  the  sand. 

It  produces,  likewise,  and  fosters,  and  makes  obstinate, 
a  self-righteous  and  self-complacent,  self-justifying  spirit; 
while  it  creates  hostility  to  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel, —  the  entire  depravity  of  man,  the  necessity  of  a  rad- 
ical change  of  character,  and  acquiescence  in  the  discrimi- 
nations of  divine  justice  and  mercy,  in  the  punishment  or 
renovation  and  pardon  of  sinful  men. 

And,  worst  of  all,  its  tendency  on  communities  is  to  cause 
prejudice  and  virulent  hostility,  not  only  against  the  doctrines 
of  the  Bible,  but  against  revelation  itself;  and  to  produce 
ultimately  scepticism  and  rank  infidelity,  and  scoffing  at  the 
Bible  and  the  work  of  the  Spirit. 

3.  The  '  effectual  means  of  regeneration  is  the 
Word  of  God.  By  effectual  means,  I  understand  the  means 
which  God  employs  and  renders  efficient  in  producing  the 
change.  That  he  accomplishes  the  change  by  his  mighty 
power  associated  with  means,  is  the  unequivocal  testimony  of 
the  Bible  and  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Chosen  to  salvation 
the  elect  of  God  are,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and 
belief  of  the  truth  whercunto  he  called  them  by  the  Gospel. 
The  Gospel  is  denominated  "  the  power  of  God  and  the  wis- 
dom of  God  unto  salvation."  '^  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  per- 
fect, converting  the  soul."  "  The  word  of  God  is  quick  and 
powerful."  "  The  seed  is  the  word."  "  Being  born  again, 
not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of 


860  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

God ;  and  this  is  the  word  which  bj  the  Gospel  is  preached 
unto  you."  "Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall 
make  you  free."  "  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth.  Thy 
word  is  truth."  "  Seeing  ye  have  purified  your  souls  in  obey- 
ing the  truth  through  the  Spirit."  "  They  shall  be  taught 
of  God."  "  I  drew  them  Ayith  the  cords  of  love."  "  No  man 
can  come  unto  me,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me 
draw  him."  "Everyone,  therefore,  which  hath  heard  and 
learned  of  the  Father,  cometh  unto  me." 

This  is  only  a  small  portion  of  the  phraseology  of  the  Bible 
which  associates  God's  efficiency  with  his  word,  in  regenera- 
tion. That  such  instrumentality  should,  in  direct  terms,  and 
by  every  variety  of  metaphor,  be  associated  with  the  power 
of  God  in  regeneration,  if  in  fact  no  such  instrumentality  is 
employed,  cannot  be  assumed  without  shaking  the  foundation 
of  all  confidence  in  the  teaching  of  the  Bible.  Exposition 
may  as  well  be  abandoned ;  for  nothing,  in  that  case,  can  be 
taught  by  language,  which  theory  and  imagination  might  not 
explain  away.  We  might  as  well  deny  that  God  is  the  effi- 
cient cause,  as  that  truth  is  the  "  efiectual  means"  of  regen- 
eration. But  there  is  no  necessity  for  denying  either,  and 
no  authority  for  stripping  either  class  of  texts  of  their  natural 
and  obvious  import,  to  mean  nothing.  What  would  be 
thought  of  the  expositor  who  should  insist  that  because  men 
are  begotten  again  by  the  icord,  therefore  the  'power  of  God 
is  not  concerned  in  regeneration,  and  that  it  is  all  a  matter  of 
moral  suasion  and  human  endeavor  ?  But  why  should  the 
efficiency  of  God  defraud  the  word  of  its  alleged  instrument- 
ality, or  the  instrumentality  of  the  word  exclude  the  power 
of  God  ?  Is  the  union  of  both  impossible  ?  It  cannot  be 
impossible,  because,  unquestionably,  in  the  government  of  the 
natural  world,  God's  almightiness  is  associated  with  the  in- 


TllIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  361 

strumcntality  of  natural  causes,  and  may  be  just  as  possibly, 
if  God  pleases,  in  the  moral  world,  associated  with  the  instru- 
mentality of  moral  causes. 

To  what  purpose  are  laws,  and  institutions,  and  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel,  if  God  does  nothing  and  can  do  nothing  by 
their  instrumentality  ?  Are  laws,  and  institutions,  and  the 
ministry  of  reconcihation,  only  the  empty  attendant  symbols 
of  God's  power?  Does  it  correspond  with  the  usage  of 
revealed  language,  to  ascribe  instrumentality  to  the  impotent 
signals  and  attendants  of  God's  agency  ?  Is  it  ever  said  that 
God  inflicted  the  plagues  of  Egypt  by  Aaron^s  rod,  or  threw 
down  the  walls  of  Jericho  by  rams'  horns?  The  analogy 
of  scriptural  use  forbids  the  ascription  of  instrumental  agency 
to  the  mere  symbols  of  the  presence  and  power  of  God.  Nor 
have  I  been  able  to  find  any  declaration  in  the  Bible  that 
God  regenerates  by  his  own  almighty  power,  without  any 
instrumental  agency.  The  Scriptures  teach  abundantly  that 
God  is  the  author  of  regeneration,  and  that  it  is  the  instanta- 
neous effect  of  his  omnipotence,  applied  with  a  direct  design 
to  produce  it ;  but  the  fact  that  he  does  it,  and  that  it  is  an 
illustrious  act  of  omnipotence,  does  not  decide  how  he  does 
it^  much  less  that  he  does  it  by  power  only,  without  means  ; 
while  all  the  passages  which  speak  of  the  instrumentality  of 
the  word  prove  that  he  does  not  regenerate  by  omnipotence 
alone,  but  by  power  associated  with  the  reading,  and  especially 
the  preaching,  of  the  word. 

With  this  view  of  the  subject  correspond  all  the  implica- 
tions of  the  Bible.  If  the  Gospel  possesses  no  adaptation  to 
secure  in  any  way,  as  a  means  in  the  hand  of  God,  the  reno- 
vation of  the  heart,  whence  the  transcendent  excellence  and 
importance  attached  to  it,  and  the  high  perniciousness  and 
criminality  of  error,  and  why  is  the  almighty  power  of  God 

VOL.  III.  31 


362  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

manifest  only  in  alliance  "with  revelation  ?  Is  tlie  truth  of 
God  a  mere  arbitrary  association  of  particular  opinions  with 
particular  acts  of  God's  power?  It  cannot  be.  The  testi- 
mony of  the  Bible  is  express  the  other  way. 

There  is,  however,  in  our  Church,  no  need  of  controversy 
on  the  subject,  and  no  room  for  it. 

It  is  not  claimed  that  God  regenerates  by  the  truth  without 
an  interposition  of  the  exceeding  greatness  of  his  own  power ; 
and,  without  denying  the  Confession  and  Catechisms,  it  can- 
not be  denied  that  what  is  accomplished  in  effectual  calling 
is  accomplished  by  his  word  and  Spirit. 

That  God  is  able  by  his  direct  immediate  power  to  approach 
the  mind  in  every  faculty,  and  to  touch  all  the  springs  of 
action  and  affection,  I  have  never  denied  or  doubted.  And 
that  he  is  able  by  the  direct  interposition  of  his  power  so  to 
rectify  the  mind  of  man,  as  disordered  by  the  fall,  as  that  the 
consequence  would  be  the  immediate,  unperverted  exercise  of 
the  will  and  affections  in  obedience,  is  just  as  evident  as  that 
God  can  create  minds  in  such  a  condition  that  they  will  in 
these  respects  go  right  from  the  beginning ;  and  that  in  this 
manner  he  does  retrieve  the  consequences  of  the  fall,  in  re- 
spect to  those  who  die  in  infancy,  would  seem  to  be  as  evident 
as  that  he  saves  them  at  all.  That  he  is  able,  also,  if  it 
seemed  good  in  his  sight,  to  reveal  the  truth  and  manifest 
himself  savingly  to  the  heathen,  is  as  plain  as  that  he  could 
reveal  the  same  truths  to  holy  men  of  old,  and  make  them 
effectual  through  a  written  word  and  established  ordinances. 
Nor  is  it  denied  or  doubted,  in  respect  to  possibility,  that 
God,  if  it  seemed  wisest  and  best  under  the  Gospel,  might 
make  such  manifestations  of  himself  to  the  souls  of  men, 
attended  by  such  energy  of  his  almighty  power,  as  would  call 
them  unfaihngly  into  his  kingdom. 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  363 

The  question,  as  we  have  said,  is  not  a  question  of  possible 
or  impossible,  but  a  question  of  fact,  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  God  does  actually  call  effectually  sinners  into  his 
kingdom, —  a  question  of  wisdom  and  goodness  in  doing  what 
is  best  in  the  best  manner. 

I  have  no  sympathy  for  the  opinion  that  it  depends  on 
sinners  whether  they  be  regenerated  or  not  in  the  day  of  his 
power,  or  that  God  does  all  he  can,  and  leaves  the  event  of 
submission  or  not  to  rebel  man, —  and  that  sinners  make 
themselves  to  differ,  and  are  in  fact  the  self-determining 
authors  of  their  own  regeneration.  The  passages  quoted  to 
prove  such  an  assertion  are  misunderstood  and  perverted. 

The  texts, — ''  What  could  1  have  done  more  for  my  vine- 
yard that  I  have  not  done  in  it?"  and  "he  could  not  do 
many  mighty  works  there,  because  of  their  unbelief,"  and 
other  kindred  passages,  do  not  teach  that  God  is  ever  effica- 
ciously resisted  by  any  sinner  whom  he  attempts  to  subdue, 
or  that  there  is  any  sinner  on  earth  so  stubborn  and  obstinate 
that  God  could  not  reconcile  him  if  it  seemed  good  in  his 
sight.  The  limitation  is  of  God's  unerring  wisdom, —  and 
the  ''cannot"  the  same  as  when  it  is  said  he  cannot  deny 
himself,  or  cannot  lie,  or  where  God  himself  says,  "Though 
Closes  and  Samuel  stood  before  me,  yet  my  mind  could  not 
be  towards  this  people." 

The  question,  also,  has  respect  not  to  extreme  cases,  but 
to  the  ordinary  methods  of  his  sovereign  power  in  saving 
men ;  and  here  the  Bible  and  Confession  are  express,  that 
regeneration  is  accomplished  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of 
God. 

Most  assuredly  it  is  the  grammatical  import  and  obvious 
meaning,  and  no  doubt  the  true  intent  of  our  Confession  and 
Catechisms,  that  what  God  accomplishes  in  effectual  calling 


364  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

he  accomplislies  by  his  •word  and  Spirit, —  effectually  calls 
^^by  his  word  and  Sj^irit^^  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and 
death  in  which  men  are  by  nature.  By  his  word  and  Spirit 
enlightening  their  minds  savingly  to  understand  the  things 
of  God.  By  his  u'ord  and  Sjnrit  taking  away  the  heart  of 
stone  and  giving  a  heart  of  flesh.  By  his  word  and  Sjnrit 
and  almighty  power  renewing  their  wills,  and  determining 
them  to  that  which  is  good.  By  his  word  and  Spirit  invit- 
ing and  drawing  sinners  to  Christ,  yet  so  as  they  come  most 
freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace.  The  Spirit  of  God 
maketh  the  reading,  and  especially  the  preaching  of  the  word, 
an  effectual  means  of  convincing  of  sin  and  converting 
sinners,  and  building  them  up  in  holiness  and  comfort 
through  faith  unto  salvation."  How  can  that  be  an  effect- 
ual mean  of  conversion  which  does  nothing,  and  only  attends 
the  display  of  God's  omnipotence? 

Is  it  demanded  how  God  can  make  the  word  effectual  by 
his  Spirit  in  regeneration  ?  I  am  not  sure  that  the  Bible,  or 
the  creeds,  or  standard  writers,  have  explained  exactly  how 
the  Spirit  regenerates  by  the  word,  or  that  I  shall  be  able  to 
do  justice  to  the  representations  which  they  have  made.  It 
is  evident,  however,  that  by  '"'the  word"  and  "the 
TRUTH  "  is  meant  the  whole  revelation  which  God  has  made 
to  man  :  including  all  the  truths,  motives,  and  ordinances  of 
the  Bible,  and  all  the  illustrative  and  corroborating  influence 
of  his  providential  government;  comprehending  the  being, 
the  attributes,  the  character,  and  the  eternal  counsel  and  law 
of  God,  the  fall  and  total  depravity  of  man,  the  developments 
of  the  Trinity,  and  plan  of  redemption  by  Jesus  Christ; 
including  his  divine  person,  mediation,  atonement,  and  the 
terms  upon  which  justification  and  eternal  life  are  offered, 
and  the  ordinances  and  means  of  commendins:  these  overtures 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  *       865 

of  mercy  to  the  consciences  and  hearts  of  men ;  including 
also  the  Spirit,  liis  divine  person,  and  work  of  revelation, 
illumination  and  restraint,  awakening  and  convincing,  con- 
verting and  sanctifying  sinful  men,  to  make  them  meet  for 
heaven  ;  and  also  the  mingled  influence  of  majesty  and  con- 
descension, justice  and  mercy,  and  all  the  promises  and 
thrcatenings,  and  hopes  and  fears,  attendant  upon  the  dis- 
criminations of  grace  and  justice,  of  death  and  judgment 
and  eternity,  associated  with  heaven  and  hell,  according  to 
the  characters  formed,  and  the  deeds  done  in  the  body. 

Now,  it  is  admitted  by  all  orthodox  creeds  and  -writers 
that  there  is  a  work  preparatory  and  consequential  to  regen- 
eration, which  the  Spirit  does  accomplish  by  the  instrument- 
ality of  the  word.  It  is  called  before  regeneration  common 
grace ;  and  after,  sanctification.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  see  the 
adaptation  of  the  word  to  the  requisite  preparatory  work. 
The  thing  to  be  accomphshed  in  regeneration  is  the  restora- 
tion of  the  vagrant  will  and  affections  from  the  creature  to 
the  Creator, —  the  turning  from  broken  cisterns  to  God,  the 
fountain  of  good.  To  accomplish  this,  the  character  and 
law  of  God  need  to  be  understood,  the  sinner's  attention 
arrested,  his  sensibilities  quickened,  his  conscience  invigo- 
rated, and  his  sins  set  in  order  before  him  by  the  coming  of 
the  commandment ;  and  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  word  is 
powerful  in  its  adaptation  after  regeneration,  to  sanctify  and 
fit  believers  for  heaven.  The  Psalmist  celebrates  it  as 
'•right,  rejoicing  the  heart," — "pure,  enlightening  the 
eyes ;"  and  our  Saviour,  in  his  intercessory  prayer  for  his 
disciples  and  people  in  all  ages,  prays,  "  Sanctify  them 
through  thy  truth, —  thy  word  is  truth." 

The  only  question  is,  whether  God,  by  his  Spirit,  makes 
the  word  as  effectual  to  regenerate  as  he  does  to  prepare  the 

VOL.  in.  31* 


366  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

way,  and  to  sanctify  after  regeneration.  And  is  it  a  thing 
intuitively  impossible  that  God,  according  to  the  language  of 
our  Confession  and  Catechisms,  should  be  "pleased,  in  his 
appointed  and  accepted  time,  effectually  to  call  the  predesti- 
nated by  his  word  and  Spirit  out  of  a  state  of  sin  and  death, 
in  which  they  are  by  nature,  to  grace  and  salvation  by 
Jesus  Christ;  by  his  word  and  Spirit  enlightening  their 
minds  spiritually  and  savingly,  to  understand  the  things  of 
God,  taking  away  their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them 
a  heart  of  flesh  ;  renewing  their  wills,  and  by  his  almighty 
power  determining  to  that  which  is  good,  and  effectually 
drawing  them  to  Christ,  yet  so  as  they  come  freely,  being 
made  willing  by  his  grace :  in  his  accepted  time,  inviting 
and  drawing  them  to  Christ  by  his  word  and  Spirit ;  —  the 
Spirit  of  God  making  the  reading,  but  especially  the  preach- 
ing of  the  word,  an  effectual  mean  of  convincing  and  convert- 
ing sinners,  and  of  building  them  up  in  hohness  and  comfort 
through  faith  unto  salvation"?  Our  standards,  you  per- 
ceive, are  unequivocal  in  the  declaration  that  regeneration 
itself,  as  well  as  conviction  and  sanctification,  is  accomphshed 
by  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God.  It  ascribes  expressly  the 
same  instrumentality  to  the  word,  in  regeneration,  which  it 
ascribes  to  it  in  conviction  and  sanctification.  This,  so  far  as 
I  can  judge,  has  been  the  prevalent  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  God  in  every  age.  Indeed,  it  was  one  of  the  points  of 
earnest  controversy  between  Papist  and  Protestant :  the  one 
mystifying  about  the  internal  word,  as  a  pretext  for  the 
sequestration  of  the  Bible,  the  other  asserting  its  instrument- 
ality. Should  the  question  be  pressed,  how  the  Spirit 
makes  the  word  effectual  in  regeneration,  the  answer  is : 

Not  by  the  truth  and  motives  of  the  word,  as  God  employs 
natural  causes  to  produce  their  effects.     It  is  said  expressly 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  3G7 

in  our  Confession  that  he  docs  not  force  tlic  will,  or  dctcr- 
uiinc  it  to  good  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature,  but  that 
he  doth  persuade  and  enable  men  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ 
freely  offered  .to  them  in  the  Gospel. 

The  mind  is  not  a  material  substance,  nor  the  means  of  its 
unperverted  action  natural  causes ;  and  to  clothe  the  word, 
in  the  hand  of  the  Spirit,  with  the  power  of  a  natural  cause, 
from  imagery  borrowed  from  the  natural  wprld,  is  to 
materialize  both  the  word  and  the  soul.  The  heart  is  not 
literally  a  stone  ;  nor  the  word  of  God  a  sword,  or  fire,  or 
hammer,  to  break  or  melt  the  stony  heart.  The  meaning  is 
that  the  Spirit  somehow,  by  the  word,  both  wounds  and 
heals  the  soul ;  not  as  he  would  wound  the  body  by  a  spear, 
and  heal  it  by  surgical  application, —  but  he  does  it  by  an 
instrumentality  which  may  be  fitly  represented  by  such 
metaphorical  analogies. 

The  Bible  contains  precisely  that  balanced  exhibition  of 
God, —  of  the  riches  of  his  goodness,  his  majesty  and  his  con- 
descension, his  love  and  his  justice,  his  mercy  and  his  inex- 
orable decision  to  punish  the  incorrigible,  his  long-sufiering 
and  sudden  vengeance, — and  so  exhibits  the  glorious  and  dread- 
ful discriminations  of  his  justice  and  his  grace,  as  makes  it 
as  perfect  in  its  adaptation  when  brought  home  to  the  mind 
and  heart  to  induce  submission,  as  the  commandment,  when 
commanded  by  the  Spirit,  is  to  produce  conviction,  or  the 
same  exhibition  made  real  by  divine  illumination  to  sanctify 
the  believer ;  but  sin  has  darkened  the  mind,  and  the  god  of 
this  world,  and  the  sinner's  own  deceitful  heart  of  enmity, 
keep  out  this  exhibition  as  a  matter  of  living  reality,  so 
that  the  natural  man  nnderstandeth  not,  by  his  own  or  any 
human  endeavor,  the  things  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  But,  as 
the  Spirit  commends  the  law  to  the  sinner's  conscience  in 


368  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

conviction  of  sin  as  man  cannot,  and  sanctifies  by  the  truth 
his  regenerated  people,  so  ' '  all  those  whom  God  hath  predesti- 
nated unto  life,  and  those  only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his  appointed 
and  accepted  time,  effectually  to  call,  by  his  word  and  Spirit, 
out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death  in  which  they  are  by  nature, 
to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ ;  enlightening  their 
minds  spiritually  and  savingly  to  understand  the  things  of 
God,  taking  away  their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them 
a  heart  of  flesh ;  renewing  their  wills,  and  by  his  almighty 
power  determining  them  to  that  which  is  good  ;  and  effectu- 
ally drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ ;  yet  so  as  they  come  most 
freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace."  It  is  all  dark  to 
the  sinner,  and  mournful  and  terrible,  till  the  Spirit  makes  the 
Gospel  a  reality  instinct  with  life. 

Nor  is  it  the  letter^  the  simple  naked  truth  as  a  mere 
matter  of  intellectual  perception,  which  becomes  effectual,  even 
in  the  hand  of  God.  Facts  and  propositions  do  not  contain 
and  exhibit  the  whole  truth  contained  in  the  Bible.  It  is  a 
depository  of  divine  feeling,  from  which  flows  the  copious 
tide  of  God's  love  and  hatred,  his  compassion  and  his  justice, 
his  mercy  and  his  wrath, —  the  meltings  of  his  heart,  the 
terrors  of  his  power,  and  the  energy  of  his  will.  All  the 
reality  of  divine  feeling  is  expressed  in  the  Bible ;  but  the 
natural  man  understandeth  it  not, —  he  reads  the  letter  only 
which  killeth.  But  it  is  the  Spirit  which  giveth  life,  ' '  the 
words  that  I  speak  unto  you  they  are  spirit  and  they  are 
life,"  manifesting  the  truth  and  reality  of  divine  feeling  to 
the  soul.  While  the  sinner  reads  with  darkened  mind  the 
sacred  page,  the  Spirit  makes  it  luminous,  and  quick,  and 
powerful, —  it  is  as  if  written  upon  transparencies  with  invisi- 
ble ink, —  unseen  and  unfelt,  till  the  illumination  of  the  Spirit 
throws  it  out  in  letters  of  fire. 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  369 

Then  the  heavens  illuminated  declare  the  glory  of  God, 
and  the  inspired  page  shines  with  overpowering  splendor. 
Both  these  united  manifestations  of  the  works  and  word  of 
God  are  celebrated  in  the  19  th  Psalm  : 

The  heavens  declare  tlie  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament  slioweth  his 
handiwork.  Day  unto  day  uttereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  showeth 
knowledge.  There  is  no  speecli  nor  language  where  their  voice  is  not  heard. 
Their  line  is  gone  out  through  all  the  earth,  and  their  words  to  the  end  of 
the  world.  In  them  hath  he  set  a  tabernacle  for  the  sun  ;  which  is  as  a 
bridegroom  coming  out  of  his  chamber,  and  rejoiceth  as  a  strong  man  to 
run  a  race.  His  going  forth  is  from  the  end  of  the  heaven,  and  his  circuit 
unto  the  ends  of  it :  and  there  is  nothing  hid  from  the  heat  thereof.  The 
law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul ;  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is 
sure,  making  wise  the  simple  ;  the  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  right,  rejoicing 
the  heart ;  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes. 

In  accordance  with  these  views  of  the  proper  instrumental- 
ity of  the  word  in  regeneration,  is  the  testimony  of  Augus- 
tine, as  quoted  by  Knapp  : 

With  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  saving  grace  operates,  Augustin 
believed  that  in  the  case  of  those  who  enjoy  revelation,  grace  commonly 
acts  by  means  of  the  word,  or  the  divine  doctrine,  but  sometimes  directly  ; 
because  God  is  not  confined  to  the  use  of  means.  On  this  point  there  was 
great  logomachy.  —  Knapp' s  Theology,  vol.  ii.  p.  457. 

To  the  same  purpose  is  the  exposition  by  Calvin  of 
Hebrews  4  :  12  :  "  For  the  word  of  God  is  quick,  and  power- 
ful, and  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword,  piercing  even  to 
the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit,  and  of  the  joints  and 
marrow,  and  is  a  disccrner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the 
heart." 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  the  word  of  God 
which  is  brought  to  us  by  the  ministry  of  men.  For  these  imaginations 
are  silly  and  even  pernicious,  to  wit,  that  the  internal  word,  indeed,  is  effica- 
cious, but  that  the  word  which  proceeds  from  the  mouth  of  man  is  dead  and 


370  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

destitute  of  all  effect.  I  confess,  truly,  that  its  efficacy  does  not  proceed 
from  the  tongue  of  man,  nor  reside  in  the  "word  itself,  but  that  it  is  owing 
entirely  to  the  Holy  Spirit ;  nevertheless  this  is  no  objection  to  the  idea 
that  the  Spirit  puts  forth  his  power  in  the  preached  word.  For  God,  since 
he  does  not  speak  by  himself,  but  by  men,  sedulously  insists  on  this,  lest 
his  doctrine  should  be  received  contemptuously,  because  men  are  its 
ministers.  Thus  Paul,  when  he  calls  the  Gospel  the  power  of  God  (Rom. 
1  :  16),  purposely  dignifies  his  preaching  with  this  title,  because  he  saw 
that  it  had  been  slandered  by  some  and  despised  by  others.  Moreover, 
when  he  calls  the  word  living,  its  relation  to  men  is  to  be  understood,  as 
appears  more  clearly  ill  the  second  epithet  ;  for  he  shows  what  this  life  is, 
when  he  then  calls  it  efficacious  ;  for  it  is  the  design  of  the  apostle  to  show 
what  the  use  of  the  word  is  in  respect  to  us. 

The  words  rendered  living  and  efficacious  in  the  above 
paragraph  are  in  the  English  version  translated  quick  and 
powerful. 

The  following  is  the  comment  of  Calvin  on  Romans  10  :  17 : 
"  So,  then,  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word 
of  God." 

This  is  a  remarkable  passage  concerning  the  efficacy  of  preaching,  since 
it  testifies  that  faith  proceeds  from  it.  He,  indeed,  confessed  just  before 
that  it  accomplished  no  good  by  itself ;  but  where  it  pleases  the  Lord  to 
work,  this  is  the  instrument  of  his  power.  God  by  the  voice  of  man  acts 
efficaciously,  and  by  his  ministry  creates  faith  in  us.  In  this  manner  that 
Papal  phantasm  of  implicit  faith,  which  separates  faith  from  the  word, 
falls  to  the  ground. 

The  Synod  of  Dort  is  unequivocal  also  in  the  doctrine  of 
effectual  caUing  by  the  word  and  Spirit. 

What,  therefore,  neither  the  light  of  nature  nor  the  law  could  do,  that 
God  performs  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  word,  or  the 
ministry  of  reconcilisition  ;  which  is  the  Gospel  concerning  the  Messiah,  by 
which  it  hath  pleased  God  to  save  believers,  as  well  under  the  Old  as  under 
the  New  Testament.  —  ScoiVs  Synod  of  Dort,  p.  137. 

But  in  like  manner,  as  by  the  fall  man  does  not  cease  to  be  man, 
endowed  with  intellect  and  will,  neither  hath  sin,  which  has  pervaded 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  371 

the  whole  human  race,  taken  away  the  nature  of  the  human  species,  but  it 
hath  depraved  and  spiritually  stained  it ;  so  even  this  divine  grace  of 
regeneration  does  not  act  upon  men  like  stocks  and  trees,  nor  take  away 
the  proprieties  (or  properties,  proprietates)  of  his  will,  or  violently  compel 
it  while  unwilling  ;  but  it  spiritually  quickens  (or  vivifies),  heals,  cor- 
rects, and  sweetly,  and  at  the  same  time  powerfully  inclines  it :  so  that 
whereas  before  it  was  wholly  governed  by  the  rebellion  and  resistance  of 
the  flesh,  now  prompt  and  sincere  obedience  of  the  Spirit  may  begin  to 
reign.  —  Ibid.  p.  141. 

But  in  the  same  manner  as  the  omnipotent  operation  of  God,  whereby  he 
produces  and  supports  our  natural  life,  doth  not  exclude  but  require  the 
use  of  means,  by  which  God  in  his  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness  sees  fit  to 
exercise  this  his  power,  so  this  fore-mentioned  supernatural  power  of  God 
by  which  he  regenerates  us  in  nowise  excludes  or  sets  aside  the  use  of  the 
Gospel,  which  the  most  wise  God  hath  ordained  as  the  seed  of  regeneration 
and  the  food  of  the  soul.  Wherefore,  as  the  apostles,  and  those  teachers 
who  followed  them,  have  piously  instructed  the  people  concerning  this 
grace  of  God,  in  order  to  his  glory  and  to  the  keeping  down  of  all  pride, 
in  the  mean  time  neither  have  they  neglected  (being  admonished  by  the 
holy  Gospel)  to  keep  them  under  the  exercise  of  the  word,  the  sacraments, 
and  discipline  :  so,  then,  be  it  far  fx-om  us,  that  teachers  or  learners  in  the 
Church  should  pi'csume  to  tempt  God,  by  separating  those  things  which 
God,  of  his  own  good  pleasure,  would  have  most  closely  united  together. 
For  grace  is  conferred  through  admonitions,  and  the  more  promptly  we  do 
our  duty,  the  more  illustrious  the  benefit  of  God,  who  worketh  in  us,  is 
wont  to  be,  and  the  most  rightly  doth  his  work  proceed.  To  whom  alone 
all  the  glory,  both  of  the  means  and  their  beneficial  fruits  and  efficacy,  is 
due  for  everlasting.     Amen.  —  Ibid.  p.  142. 

WiTSius,  a  standard  writer  in  the  Church,  says  : 

Regeneration  is  that  supernatural  act  of  God  whereby  a  new  and  divine 
life  is  infused  into  the  elect,  —  persons  spiritually  dead,  —  and  that  from 
the  incorruptible  seed  of  the  word  of  God  made  fruitful  by  the  infinite 
power  of  the  Spirit. 

WiTHERSPOON,  one  of  the  best  standard  ^Yriters  in  our 
Church,  and  whose  treatise  on  regeneration  is  the  best  written 
and  the  most  judicious,   scriptural,   copious,   accurate,  and 


372  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

experimental  dissertation  upon  that  subject  in  the  English 
language,  speaking  of  the  nature  of  regeneration,  says  : 

As,  therefore,  the  change  is  properly  of  a  moral  or  spiritual  nature,  it 
seems  to  me  properly  and  directly  to  consist  in  these  two  things  :  1.  That 
our  supreme  and  chief  end  be  to  serve  and  glorify  God,  and  that  every 
other  aim  be  subordinate  to  this.  2.  That  the  soul  rest  in  God  as  its  chief 
happiness,  and  habitually  prefer  his  favor  to  every  other  enjoyment.  —  p. 
137. 

The  following  passages  imply  the  associated  influence  of 
means : 

The  deplorable  and  naturally  helpless  state  of  sinners  doth  not  hinder 
exhortations  to  them  in  Scripture,  and,  therefore,  takes  not  away  their 
obligation  to  duty.  See  an  address,  where  the  strongest  metaphors  are 
retained,  the  exhortation  given  in  these  very  terms,  and  the  foundation  of 
the  duty  plainly  pointed  out.  "  Wherefore  he  saith,  Awake,  thou  that 
sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall  give  thee  light."  From 
■which  it  is  very  plain  that  the  moral  inability  under  which  sinners  now 
lie,  as  a  consequence  of  the  fall,  is  not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  take  away 
the  guilt  of  sin,  the  propriety  of  exhortations  to  duty,  or  the  necessity  of 
endeavors  after  recovery. 

But  what  shall  we  say  ?  Alas  !  the  very  subject  we  are  now  speaking 
of  affords  a  new  proof  of  the  blindness,  prejudice  and  obstinacy,  of  sinners. 
They  are  self-condemned,  for  they  do  not  act  the  same  part  in  similar  cases. 
The  affairs  of  the  present  life  are  not  managed  in  so  preposterous  a  man- 
ner. He  that  ploughs  liis  ground  and  throws  in  his  seed  cannot  so  much 
as  unite  one  grain  to  the  clod  ;  nay,  he  is  not  able  to  conceive  how  it  is 
done.  He  cannot  carry  on,  nay,  he  cannot  so  much  as  begin,  one  single 
step  of  this  wonderful  pi'ocess  toward  the  subsequent  crop,  —  the  morti- 
fication of  the  seed,  the  resurrection  of  the  blade,  and  gradual  increase, 
till  it  come  to  perfect  maturity.  Is  it,  therefore,  reasonable  that  he  should 
say,  "I,  for  my  part,  can  do  nothing?  It  is,  first  and  last,  an  effect  of 
divine  power  and  energy.  And  God  can  as  easily  raise  a  crop  without 
sowing  as  with  it,  —  in  a  single  instant,  and  in  any  place,  as  in  a  long 
time,  by  the  mutual  influence  of  soil  and  season  ;  I  wiU  therefore  spare 
myself  the  hardship  of  toil  and  labor,  and  wait  with  patience,  till  I  see 
what  he  will  be  pleased  to  send."     Would  this  be  madness  ?    Would  it  be 


TRIAL   LEEORE    PRESBYTERY.  373 

universally  reputed  so  ?  And  would  it  not  be  equal  madness  to  turn  tlio 
grace  of  God  into  licentiousness  ?  Believe  it,  the  warning  is  equally  rea- 
sonable and  equally  necessary  in  spiritual  as  in  temporary  things. — pp. 
134,  135. 

The   authority  of  Owen  is  among  the  best  of  Orthodox 
authorities.     His  language  is  as  follows  : 

We  grant  that  in  the  work  of  regeneration  the  Holy  Spirit  towards  those 
that  are  adult  doth  make  use  of  the  word,  both  the  law  and  the  Gospel, 
and  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  in  the  dispensation  of  it,  as  the  ordinary 
means  thereof ;  yea,  this  is  ordinarily  the  whole  external  means  that  is 
made  use  of  in  this  work,  and  an  efficacy  proper  unto  it,  it  is  accompanied 
withal. 

The  power  which  the  Holy  Ghost  puts  forth  in  our  regeneration  is  such, 
in  its  acting  or  exercise,  as  our  minds,  wills  and  affections,  are  suited  to  be 
Avrouglit  upon,  and  to  be  affected  by  it,  according  to  their  natures  and 
natural  operations.  "Turn  thou  me,  and  I  Shall  be  turned  ;  draw  me, 
and  I  shall  run  after  thee."  He  doth  neither  act  in  them  any  otherwise 
than  they  themselves  are  meet  to  be  moved  and  move,  to  be  acted  and  act, 
according  to  their  own  nature,  power  and  ability.  He  draws  us  with  "  the 
cords  of  a  man."  And  the  work  itself  is  expressed  by  persuading —  "  God 
persuade  Japhet ;  "  and  alluring  —  "  I  will  allure  her  into  the  wilderness 
and  speak  comfortably;  "  —  for,  as  it  is  certainly  effectual,  so  it  carries  no 
more  repugnancy  unto  our  fticulties  than  a  prevalent  persuasion  doth.  So 
that  he  doth  not,  in  our  regeneration,  posses  the  mind  with  any  enthusi- 
astical  impressions,  nor  acteth  absolutely  upon  us  as  he  did  in  extraoi-di- 
nary  prophetical  inspii'ations  of  old,  where  the  minds  and  organs  of  the 
bodies  of  men  were  merely  passive  instruments,  moved  by  Him  above  their 
own  natural  capacity  and  activity,  not  only  as  to  the  principle  of  work- 
ing, but  as  to  the  manner  of  operation. 

He  therefore  offers  no  violence  or  compulsion  unto  the  will.  This  that 
faculty  is  not  naturally  capable  to  give  admission  unto.  If  it  be  compelled, 
it  is  destroyed.-  --  Owen's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  371. 

Howe  is  equally  express  on  this  subject.     lie  says : 

And   whereas,    therefoi'c,  in  this  work  there  is  a  communication   and 
participation  of  the  divine  nature,  this  is  signified  to  be  his  divine  power. 
VOL.  in.  32 


374  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

If  you  look  to  2d  Peter  2  :  3,  4,  compared,  "According  as  his  divine 
power  hath  given  us  all  things  appertaining  to  life  and  godliness,  through 
the  knowledge  of  Him  that  hath  called  us  to  glory  and  virtue  ;  whereby 
are  given  to  us  exceeding  great  and  precious  promises  ;  that  by  these  you 
might  be  partakers  of  the  diviae  nature. ' '  Here  is  a  divine  nature  to  be 
communicated  and  imparted  in  this  great  and  glorious  work.  How  is  it 
to  be  communicated  ?  It  is  true  it  must  be  by  apt  and  suitable  means,  — 
to  wit,  by  the  great  and  precious  promises  given  us  in  the  Gospel.  But  it 
must  be  by  the  exertion,  too,  of  a  divine  power.  Though  God  do  work 
suitably  to  an  intelligent  nature  when  he  works  upon  such  subjects,  yet  he 
works  also  suitably  to  himself,  "  according  as  his  divine  power  hath  given 
us  all  things  pertaining  to  life  and  godliness,"  or  to  the  godly  life,  in  order 
to  the  iugenerating  the  godly  life  his  divine  power  hath  given  us  by  the 
exceeding  great  and  precious  promises,  a  divine  nature.  The  instrument- 
ality and  subserviency  of  these  "exceeding  great  and  precious  promises  " 
is  greatly  to  be  considered,  God  working  herein  suitably  to  the  nature  of 
an  intelligent  subject.  Here  is  a  change  to  be  wrought  in  his  nature—  a 
nature  that  is  corrupt,  depraved,  averse  from  God,  alienated  from  the 
divine  life  ;  this  nature  is  now  to  be  attempered  to  God,  made  suitable  to 
him,  made  prepense  and  inclined  towards  him.  This  might  be  done,  it  is 
true,  by  an  immediate  exertion  of  almighty  power,  without  any  more  ado. 
But  God  will  work  upon  men  suitably  to  the  nature  of  man.  And  what 
course  doth  he  therefore  take  ?  He  gives  "  exceeding  great  and  precious 
promises,"  and  in  them  he  declares  his  own  good  will,  that  he  might  win 
theirs.  In  order  to  the  iugenerating  grace  m  them,  he  reveals  grace  to 
them  by  these  great  and  propious  promises.  And  what  is  grace  in  us  ? 
Truly  grace  in  us  is  good  will  towards  God,  or  good  nature  towards  God, 
which  can  never  be  without  a  transformation  of  om*  vicious,  corrupt  nature. 
It  will  never  incline  towards  God,  or  be  prepense  towards  God,  till  he  make 
it  so  by  a  transforming  power.  But  how  doth  he  make  it  so  ?  By  discov- 
ering his  kindness  and  goodness  to  them  in  "  exceeding  great  and  precious 
promises,"  satisfying  and  persuading  their  hearts,  —  "I  mean  nothing 
but  kindness  towards  you,  why  should  you  be  unkind  towards  me  ?  I  am 
full  of  good  will  towards  you  ;  will  you  requite  it  with  perpetual  ill  will 
and  everlasting  enmity  towards  me?  "  Thus  the  "  exceeding  great  and 
precious  promises^'  are  instruments  to  the  communicating  a  divine 
nature  to  us,  though  that  divine  nature  be  ingenerated  by  a  mighty  power. 
God  doth  work  at  the  rate  of  omnipotency  in  the  matter,  by  the  exertion 
of  almighty  power,  but  yet  suitably  to  our  nature,  so  as  to  express  his 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  875 

mind,  and  kind  design,  and  good  will,  by  the  exceeding  great  and  precious 
promises  contained  in  the  Gospel. 

And  if  it  were  not  so,  he  might  as  well  make  use  of  any  other  means  as 
the  Gospel  to  work  upon  souls  by.  But  the  Gospel  is  the  Avord  of  his 
grace. 

There  would  seem  to  be  the  same  evidence  of  instrumental 
action  of  the  word  as  employed  by  the  Spirit,  which  attends 
and  evidences  the  direct  efficacy  of  natural  causes.  How  do 
we  learn  the  existence  and  power  of  natural  causes  ?  We  see 
not  power  itself,  and  infer  it  only  from  the  uniformity  with 
which  the  effect  follows  the  application  of  the  cause.  It  never 
exists  without  it,  and  always  attends  its  application.  But  the 
same  evidence  of  instrumental  influence  attends  the  ministra- 
tion of  the  word  of  God.  As  a  general  fact,  no  spiritual  life 
commences  in  its  absence,  and  always  in  some  form  of  asso- 
ciation with  its  presence ;  and  whatever  may  be  the  theory  of 
ministers  on  the  subject,  they  all  pray  at  the  close  of  their 
sermons  that  God  would  make  his  word  effectual,  clothe  it 
with  power,  make  it  quick  and  powerful.  The  fire  and  the 
hammer  to  break,  and  melt,  and  purify  the  heart. 

Is  the  question  still  repeated,  Hoiv  does  God  make  the 
word  effectual  in  regeneration  by  his  Spirit  7  That  question 
belongs  not  to  me,  but  to  the  Lord  of  the  Bible ;  and  has 
been  long  since  asked  of  him,  and  answered  by  him.  Nico- 
dcmus  saith  unto  him,  "  IIow  can  these  things  be?"  And 
the  answer  was,  "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and 
thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it 
Cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth  ;  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of 
the  Spirit." 

Does  it  seem  to  any  to  be  impossible  that  God  should  sav- 
ingly enlighten  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  and  make  'Uhe  read- 
ing, and  especially  the  preaching  of  his  word,  an  effectual 
mean  of  conviction  and  conversion  "7     It  should  be  remem- 


376  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

berecl,  that  many  things  are  possible  with  God,  which  seem 
impossible  to  men.  That  our  philosophy  is  not  the  counsel  of 
his  will,  according  to  which  he  worketh  all  things ;  nor  our 
capacity  of  comprehension  the  limit  of  God's  almighty  power. 
"Where  the  lamp  of  our  reason  goes  out,  and  far  beyond  what 
eye  hath  seen  or  heart  conceived,  he  holds  on  his  eternal 
way  in  the  great  deep,  and  amid  clouds  and  darkness,  im- 
penetrable to  created  mind.  But  in  this  unexplored  and  deep 
darkness,  that  he  does  a  thing  is  the  highest  possible  evi- 
dence of  its  rectitude,  and  that  he  has  said  a  thing  the  highest 
possible  evidence  of  its  truth.  On  the  ground,  then,  of 
divine  declaration,  we  rest  our  confidence  that  God  can  make 
his  word  and  Spirit  an  effectual  means  of  the  conviction  and 
conversion  of  sinners. 

4.  Why  is  the  power  of  God  necessary  to  regen- 
eration ?  Why  may  not  argument  and  motive  prevail  on 
men  to  turn  to  God  ? 

The  power  of  God  is  not  necessary  because  the  will  of  man 
is  forced,  or  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  determined 
to  evil.  But  it  is  necessary  because  the  bias  to  actual,  sin 
occasioned  by  the  fall  is  such  as  eventuates  in  a  perverse 
decision  of  the  will  and  affections  in  respect  to  the  chief  good, 
inducing  the  preference  of  the  creature  to  the  Creator ;  and 
because,  when  this  perverse  decision  is  once  made,  the  heart 
is  fully  set  and  incorrigible  to  all  motive,  and  immutable  in 
its  way, — to  which  is  to  be  added,  the  power  of  habit  resulting 
from  the  repetition  of  evil  desire,  and  purpose,  and  gratifica- 
tion ;  and  though  altogether  they  force  not  the  will,  nor 
decide  it  wrong  by  an  absolute  necessity  of  nature,  or  cancel 
obligation,  or  afford  excuse,  they  do,  nevertheless,  render  all 
means  and  efforts  abortive  which  are  not  made  effectual  by 
the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  37T 

During  this  aberration  of  the  will  and  affections  from  God, 
there  is  nothing  remaining  to  man  which,  by  any  possible 
culture,  can  become  religion. 

No  emotions  of  the  sublime,  in  view  of  the  majesty  of  God, 
which  become  adoration :  no  admiration  of  the  adaptation  of 
his  character  and  laws  to  good  results,  or  of  the  Gospel  to 
sustain  law  and  recover  the  lost,  which  produce  holy  compla- 
cency :  no  delicacy  of  taste,  or  tenderness  of  sensibility,  which 
will  expand  and  amplify  into  love  :  no  pleasure  in  doing  good 
rather  than  evil,  which,  by  culture,  can  be  made  benevolence, 
embracing  God  Avith  supreme  and  his  subjects  with  impartial 
good  will :  no  patriotism  which  can  be  kindled  into  piety ; 
and  none  of  the  natural  affections  which  unite  in  tender  tics 
the  family,  which  become  cords  of  love  to  draw  back  the 
heart  from  the  creature  to  God  :  no  amiableness  and  good 
nature,  which  inspire  evangelical  self-denial  for  Christ's  sake ; 
and  no  piety  which  so  extends  beyond  the  sphere  of  the  senses 
as  to  feel  for  the  sorrows  of  the  soul,  and  the  woes  of  eternity  : 
no  power  of  intellect  or  urgency  of  conscience,  or  fear  of 
punishment,  as  will  ever  in  the  order  of  cause  and  effect  event- 
uate in  godly  sorrow  ;  nor  is  there  any  power  of  institutions 
or  of  doctrine,  or  argument  or  eloquence,  which  ever  enlightens 
savingly  the  dark  mind,  or  wakes  up  the  pulse  of  life  in  the 
dead  soul.  As  I  have  said  in  my  sermon  on  the  native 
character  of  man,  the  discourse  in  which  the  chief  evidence  of 
my  Pelagianism  is  supposed  to  be  contained, — "  All  which  is 
admirable  in  intellect,  or  monitory  in  conscience,  or  compre- 
hensive in  knowledge,  or  refined  in  taste,  or  delicate  in  sensi- 
bility, or  powerful  in  natural  affection,  may  be  found  in  man 
as  the  result  of  constitution,  or  the  effect  of  intellectual  and 
moral  culture  :  but  religion  is  not  found,  except  as  the  result 
of  a  special  divine  interposition.      The  temple  is  beautiful, 

VOL.  m.  32* 


378  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

but  it  is  a  temple  in  ruins ;  —  the  divinity  is  departed,  and 
the  fire  on  the  altar  is  extinct." 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  except  a  man  be  born  again, —  be 
born  from  above,  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  be  born  of  God, —  he 
cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God. 

But  I  pass  on  to  the  next  charge  — 

Charge  III.  —  Of  propagating  a.  doctrine  of  Per- 
fection, &c.  (Vide  page  88). 

On  this  subject  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  go  into  any 
extended  analysis.  The  subject  in  discussion  is  that  of  evan- 
gelical obedience,  and  the  ability  of  the  sinner  to  render  it. 
I  do  teach  that  a  sinner  is  able  to  render  such  obedience  as 
the  Gospel  requires,  and  that  so  far  as  God  renders  him  toillmg 
he  is  perfect.  But  my  sermon  nowhere  teaches  that  God  does 
actually  render  him  willing  to  keep  all  his  commandments. 
I  know  that  to  effect  this  nothing  is  needful  but  that  the  sin- 
ner should  be  willing  ;  and  where  once  he  is  so,  all  obstacle  is 
removed.  If  my  language  in  the  sermon  does  convey  the 
idea  that  a  sinner  is  ever  so  rendered  willing  that  he  keeps 
the  entire  will  of  God,  I  conveyed  that  which  I  did  not  mean. 
And  Dr.  Wilson  knows  that  this  is  and  must  be  so ;  for  he 
has  himself  admitted  that  he  does  not  believe  that  I  hold 
the  doctrine  of  the  Perfectionists.     But  what  do  I  say  7 

Indeed,  to  be  able  and  unwilling  to  obey  God,  is  tlie  only  possible  way  in 
which  a  free  agent  can  become  deserving  of  condemnation  and  punishment. 
So  long  as  he  is  able  and  willing  to  obey,  there  can  be  no  sin  ;  and  tlic 
moment  tlie  ability  of  obedience  ceases,  the  commission  of  sin  becomes  im- 
possible. —  p.  22. 

What,  then,  when  he  moves  on  to  that  work  of  sovereign  mercy  which 
no  sinner  ever  resisted,  and  without  which  no  one  ever  submitted  to  God, 
what  does  he  do  ?  When  he  pours  the  daylight  of  omniscience  upon  the 
soul,  and  comes  to  search  out  what  is  amiss,  and  put  in  order  that  which 
is  out  of  the  way,  what  impediment  to  obedience  does  he  find  to  be  removed, 


TRIAL    BEFOIIE   PRESBYTERY.  379 

anj  what  work  docs  he  perfoi'm  ?  ITe  finds  only  tlie  will  perverted,  and 
obstinately  persisting  in  its  wicked  choice  ;  and  in  the  day  of  his  power 
all  he  accomplishes  is  to  make  the  sinner  willing.  — p.  31. 

Both  passages  respect  •willingness  to  obey  the  Gospel,  and 
have  no  reference  to  a  perfect  obedience  of  the  moral  law. 

What,  then,  is  the  evidence  that  I  propagate  a  doctrine  of 
Perfection  7  1.  That  I  teach  the  doctrine  of  man's  natural 
ability  as  a  free  agent  to  obey  the  Gospel.  2.  That  this 
doctrine  tends  to  the  doctrine  of  Perfection.  3.  That  the 
Perfectionists  claim  Dr.  Beecher  as  being  on  their  side.  4. 
That  some  young  man  somewhere  has  written  a  letter  to 
Theodore  Weld  with  a  view  to  convert  him  to  Perfectionism. 
5.  That  I  have  warned  the  students  against  the  doctrine  of 
Perfection. 

Dr.  Wilson  knoics  that  this  is  no  evidence.  But  then  he 
asserts  that  some  of  the  students  in  Lane  Seminary  held  those 
notions,  and  were  Perfectionists  in  principle.  Supposing  they 
were, —  does  that  prove  that  /  taught  the  doctrine?  There 
Avas  a  Hopkinsian  student  in  Dr.  Mason's  Seminary,  in  New 
York, —  does  that  prove  that  Dr.  Mason  was  a  Hopkinsian  7 
But  there  is  one  fact,  which  has  been  proved  on  the  subject, 
and  into  which  Dr.  Wilson  ought  to  have  inquired  before  he 
ventured  to  ring  the  bell  of  alarm,  and  that  is,  that  there  was 
not  one  Perfectionist  in  the  seminary.  Prof  Biggs  and 
several  of  the  students  have  been  examined  before  you,  and 
they  expressly  say  that  they  do  not  know  of  a  single  young 
man  in  that  institution  who  holds  the  Perfectionist  notions ; 
and  all  these,  and  especially  my  warning  the  students  against 
the  doctrine,  arc  brought  to  prove  that  I  propagate  it ! 

Dr.  Wilson  says  that  ability  and  obligation,  when  brought 
together,  imply  absolute  perfection.  And  so  say  the  Per- 
fectionists.   But  Dr.  Wilson  does  himself  great  injustice,  if  he 


380    '  VIEAVS    OF   THEOLOGY.   * 

Bays  that  there  is  no  man  but  must  be  perfect,  if  he  has  the 
power  of  being  so.  That  proposition  assumes  that  every  free 
agent  does  all  that  he  is  able  to  do  ;  so  that,  if  you  show  that 
he  is  able  to  keep  God's  commandments,  it  proves  that  he 
does  keep  them. 

I  have  proved  that  man  is  able  to  obey  the  commandm^its 
of  God,  whether  in  the  Gospel  or  the  law.  But  Dr.  Wilson 
says,  if  so,  then  I  hold  that  man  is  perfect ;  because  no  free 
agent  has  ability,  unless  he  does  all  that  he  is  commanded 
to  do. 

[Dr.  Wilson  said  that  Dr.  Beecher  had  admitted  that  so 
lono;  as  a  man  is  both  able  and  willinor  there  can  be  no  sin. 
Did  he  mean  to  refute  his  own  argument  ?] 

Dr.  Beecher  replied  by  asking  whether  all  men  who  were 
able  to  pay  their  honest  debts  do  always  pay  them?  and 
whether,  if  a  man  did  not  pay  his  debts,  it  follows  that  of 
course  he  was  not  able  ?  Did  a  miser  give  always  according 
to  his  ability  ?  or  is  not  a  liar  able  to  speak  the  truth  ?  Dr. 
Beecher  said  he  was  amazed  at  the  argument  of  the  Per- 
fectionists, and  still  more  that  his  brother  Wilson  should 
have  classed  himself  with  them. 

But,  said  Dr.  Beecher,' another  argument  brought  against 
me  is  that  the  heresies  I  have  taught  lead  to  the  doctrine  of 
Perfection,  as  their  natural  result.  Dr.  Wilson  has  conceded 
that  he  himself  never  supposed  I  meant  to  {each  Perfection. 
But  he  affirms  that  I  teach  that  from  which  others  draw  the 
doctrine  of  Perfection  as  an  inference.  Now.  admittino-  the 
fact  that  they  do  draw  such  an  inference,  the  question  is 
whether  they  draw  it  logically. — whether  my  premises  lead  to 
any  such  conclusion  ?  And  I  have  proved  that  they  do  not. 
Will  Dr.  Wilson  affirm  that  a  man  holds  and  teaches  what- 
soever other  men  draw  as  inferences   from   his  language  ? 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  381 

There  ^verc  ignorant  and  unlearned  men  who  perverted  even 
tlie  language  of  Paul.  If  a  man's  doctrine  is  to  be  tested  by 
the  use  ^Yhich  heretical  persons  make  of  it,  then  Dr.  Wilson 
himself  is  most  certainly  a  heretic.  For  did  not  the  Shakers 
claim  him  ?  and  did  not  the  New  Lights  claim  him  ?  They 
did  ;  and  insisted  that,  in  maintaining  their  systems,  they 
were  only  carrying  out  the  principles  which  Dr.  Wilson  had 
laid  down.  Such  a  ground  of  charge  will  not  do ;  it  is  a 
sword  which  cuts  both  Avays. 

Again,  I  am  charged  with  preaching  the  doctrine  of 
regeneration  as  accomplished  by  the  truth.  On  a  topic  like 
this  much  might  be  said.  I  shall,  however,  content  myself 
with  saying  but  little.  I  have  no  theory  to  produce  and 
descant  upon ;  but  shall  refer  simply  to  the  Catechism  and 
to  the  Bible.     What  says  the  Shorter  Catechism  ? 

Q.  89.  How  is  the  Word  made  effectual  to  salvation  ? 

A.  The  Spirit  of  God  maketli  the  reading,  but  especially  the  preaching 
of  the  Word,  an  effectual  means  of  convincing  and  converting  sinners,  and 
of  building  them  up  in  holiness  and  comfort,  through  faith,  unto  sal- 
vation. 

And  what  says  the  Larger  Catechism  1 

Q.  155.  How  is  the  Word  made  effectual  to  salvation  ? 

Jl.  The  Spirit  of  God  makcth  the  reading,  but  especially  the  preaching 
of  the  Word,  an  effectual  means  of  enlightening,  convincing  and  humbling 
sinners  ;  of  driving  them  out  of  themselves  and  drawing  them  unto  Christ ; 
of  conforming  them  to  his  image,  and  subduing  them  to  his  will ;  of 
strengthening  them  against  temptations  and  coi'ruptions  ;  of  building  them 
up  in  grace,  and  establishing  their  hearts  in  holiness  and  comfort  through 
faith  unto  salvation. 

And  what  says  the  Confession  ? 

AH  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those  only,  he  is 
pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  accepted  time,  effectually  to  call,  by  his 
word  and  Spirit,  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death  in  which  they  are  by 
nature,  to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ ;  enlightening  their  minds 


382  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

spiritually  and  savingly  to  understand  the  things  of  God  ;  taking  away 
their  heart  of  stone  and  giving  unto  them  an  heart  of  flesh  ;  renewing  their 
wills,  and  by  his  almighty  power  determining  them  to  that  which  is  good  ; 
and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ  ;  yet  so  as  they  come  most 
freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace.  —  Ch.  x.  sec.  1. 

And  now  I  beg  leave  to  submit  sucli  quotations  from  tlie 

Bible  as  shall   present  the  views  that  I  entertain  on  this 

subject. 

See  Rom.  8  :  30  ;  11  :  10.  Eph.  1  :  10,  11.  2  Thess.  2  :  13,  14.  2 
Cor.  3  :  3,  6.  Rom.  8 :  2.  Eph.  2  :  1—5.  2  Tim.  1  :  9,  10.  Acts  26  : 
18.  1  Cor.  2  :  10,  12.  Eph.  1  :  17,  18.  Ezek.  36  :  26  ;  11  :  19.  Phil. 
2 :  13.  Deut.  30 :  6.  Ezek.  36  :  27.  Eph.  1  :  19.  John  6  :  44,  45. 
Cant.  1 :  4.     Psa.  110  :  3.     John  6  :  37.     Rom.  6  :  16,  17,  18. 

The  whole  matter  turns  upon  this. —  a  thing  which  is  done 
by  instrumental  agency  cannot  at  the  same  time  be  done  by 
direct  agency,  because  it  involves  a  contradiction.  Now, 
our  book  says  that  regeneration  is  accomphshed  by  the 
instrumentality  of  the  Word  of  God,  the  Gospel  of  Christ ; 
and  the  Bible  declares  that  men  are  begotten  by  the  incor- 
ruptible seed  of  the  Word ;  and  Paul  declares  that  it  is  by 
the  cross  of  Christ  that  he  is  crucified  to  the  world.  The 
Catechism  and  the  Bible,  therefore,  both  say  that  the  saving 
change  in  man  is  accomplished  by  instrumentality ;  and  the 
charge  against  me  implies  that  this  is  untrue.  We  both 
admit  that  it  is  God  who  converts ;  but  I  say  he,  converts 
men  through  his  Word  of  truth,  and  Dr.  Wilson  says  that 
he  converts  them  by  a  direct  agency,  without  any  interven- 
ing instrumentality  whatever.  On  account  of  this  difference 
between  us,  he  charges  me  with  heresy.  My  answer  is,  to 
the  law  and  to  the  testimony. 

And,  first,  the  subject  does  not  require  in  its  own  nature 
the  intervention  of  God's  naked  omnipotency.  This,  indeed, 
would  be  required,  if  an  operation  was  to  be  performed  in  the 


TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  S88 

natural  world.  Matter  can  be  moved  in  no  other  way.  But, 
as  the  effect  is  a  moral  one,  being  none  other  than  a  change 
of  an  enemy  into  a  friend,  what  is  the  instrumentality  by 
which  it  is  to  be  effected  1  Must  not  that  be  moral  also  'I 
Why  did  Christ  die  l  Why  Avas  his  atoning  blood  put  into 
the  hand  of  the  Spirit  to  be  thrown  by  him  upon  hard-hearted 
man,  that  he  may  be  subdued  to  love  and  obedience  ?  Are 
these  the  means  which  God  employs  when  he  works  a  change 
in  things  material  and  natural '?  What  should  God  employ 
to  move  a  free  agent,  but  the  motives  so  abundantly  contained 
in  his  own  Word  l 

The  charge  assumes  that  he  works  this  change  without 
means  of  any  kind.  Now,  I  don't  philosophize  about  the 
matter.  Let  them  who  do  tell  us  how  x^nemies  are  recon- 
ciled. It  is  not  for  me  to  say  how  God  does  this  work.  It  is 
for  God  alone  to  tell.  God  says  he  does  it  by  the  Word ; 
and  the  Catechism  says  he  makes  the  Word  an  effectual 
means  of  doing  it ;  and  if  the  Word  has  done  it,  and  has 
been  effectual  in  doing  it,  then  it  is  not  done  without  the 
Word  by  direct  power.  If  a  thing  cannot  be  done  in  two 
different  ways  at  the  same  time,  and  it  is  known  from  good 
evidence  that  it  is  done  in  one  way,  then  we  know  that  it  is 
not  done  in  the  other  Avay.  A  tree  cannot  be  cut  doAvn  with 
au  axe,  and  at  the  same  time  pushed  down  by  the  unaided 
strength  of  a  man's  hand.  If  he  pushes  it  doAvn,  he  does  not 
cut  it  doAvn ;  if  he  cuts  it  doAvn,  he  does  not  push  it  down. 
And  as  God  has  said  that  he  makes  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  EFFECTUAL,  no  man  may  set  aside  God's  testimony  in 
Older  to  introduce  his  own  philosophy.  This  is  my  ground : 
it  is  not  ncAV  divinity  ;  and  if  it  is  heresy,  I  shall  carry  it  out 
of  the  Church  Avith  me, —  and  yet  I  hope  that  I  shall  leave  it 
in  the  Church  too. 


384  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

IV.  Another  charge  which  I  am  to  answer  is  that 

OF   HAVING   SLANDERED   THE   WHOLE    ChURGH   OF    GOD. — 

(p.  89.) 

I  charge  Dr.  Beecher  with  the  sin  of  slander,  namely  : 

Specificatiox  1.  — In  belying  the  whole  church  of  God. 

The  Doctor's  statements  are  these  :  "  There  is  no  position  which  unites 
more  universally  and  entirely  the  suffrages  of  the  whole  human  race  than 
the  necessity  of  a  capacity  for  obedience  to  the  existence  of  obligation  and 
desert  of  punishment."  Again:  "  The  doctrine  of  man's/rec  ag-enci/ and 
natural  ability,  as  the  ground  of  obligation  and  guilt,  has  been  the  received 
doctrine  of  the  Orthodox  Church  in  all  ages."  — Sermon  "  Dependence  and 
Free  Agency,"  pp.  23  and  36. 

Specification  2.  —  In  attempting  to  bring  odium  upon  all  who  sincei'ely 
receive  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  to  cast  all  the 
Reformers,  previous  to  the  time  of  Edwards,  into  the  shade  of  ignorance  and 
contempt. 

Dr.  Beecher  says :  "  Doubtless  the  impression  often  made  by  their 
language  (language  of  the  Reformers)  has  been  that  of  natural  impotency  ; 
and  in  modern  days  there  may  be  those  who  have  not  understood  the 
language  of  the  Reformers,  or  of  the  Bible,  on  this  subject  ;  and  who 
verily  believe  that  both  teach  that  man  has  no  ability,  of  any  kind  or 
degree,  to  do  anything  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  that  the  rights  of  God 
to  command  and  to  punish  survive  the  wreck  and  extinction  in  his  subjects 
of  the  elements  of  accountability.  Of  such,  if  there  be  such  in  the  church, 
we  have  only  to  say,  than  when,  for  the  time,  they  ought  to  be  teachers, 
they  have  need  that  some  one  should  teach  them  which  be  the  first  prin- 
ciples of  the  oracles  of  God."  —  Sermon  "  Dependence  and  Free  Agency," 
p.  41.     Again  : 

"  It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  from  tlie  primitive  age  down  to 
the  time  of  Edwards,  few  saw  this  subject  with  clearness,  or  traced  it  with 
uniform  precision  and  consistency.  His  appears  to  have  been  the  mind 
that  first  rose  above  the  mists  which  long  hung  over  the  subject."  —  p.  41. 
Again  : 

"  So  far  as  the  Calvinistic  system,  as  expounded  by  Edwards  and  the 
disciples  of  his  school,  prevailed,  revivals  prevailed,  and  heresy  was  kept 
back.  And  most  notoriously  it  was  '  dead  orthodoxy  '  which  opened  the 
dikes,  and  let  in  the  flood  'of  Arminian  and  Unitarian  heresy.'  "  By 
attending  to  the  whole  passage,  page  48,  same  sermon,  the  Presbytery  will 
see  that  "  dead  orthMoxy,"  as  the  Doctor  calls  it,  was  the  doctrine  of 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  385 

man's  natural  impotcnoy  to  obey  the  Gospel.  —  p.  48.  The  Doctor  attempts 
to  make  us  believe  that,  from  the  time  of  Edwards,  the  theory  of  this 
sermon  has  been,  and  now  is,  the  received  doctrine  of  the  ministers  and 
churches  of  New  England.  The  truth  of  this  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit, 
bad  as  I  think  of  the  New  England  theologians  in  general  ;  but  I  am  not 
prepared  to  deny  it.  Be  it  so,  —  the  matter  is  so  much  the  worse.  Again 
the  Doctor  proceeds,  in  his  strain  of  calumny,  —  "  Far  the  greater  portion 
of  the  revivals  of  our  land,  it  is  well  known,  have  come  to  pass  under  the 
auspices  of  Calvinism,  as  modified  by  Edwards  and  the  disciples  of  his 
school,  and  under  the  inculcation  of  ability  and  obligation,  and  urgent 
exhortations  of  immediate  repentance  and  submission  to  God  ;  while  con- 
gregations and  regions  over  which  natural  impotency  and  dependence, 
and  the  impenitent  use  of  means,  and  waiting  God's  time,  have  disclosed 
theii*  tendencies,  have  remained,  like  Egypt,  dark  beside  the  land  of 
Goshen  ;  and  like  the  mountain  of  Gilboa,  on  which  there  was  no  rain,  nor 
fields  of  oficring  ;  and  like  the  valley  of  vision,  dead,  dry,  very  dry."  — 
p.  40. 

And,  to  complete  the  climax,  the  Doctor  adds  :  "  No  other  obstruction  to 
the  success  of  the  Gospel  is  so  great,  as  the  possession  of  the  public  mind 
by  the  belief  of  the  natural  and  absolute  inability  of  unconverted  men.  It 
has  done  more,  I  verily  believe,  to  wrap  in  sackcloth  the  Sun  of  Righteous- 
ness, and  perpetuate  the  shadow  of  death  on  those  who  might  have  been 
rejoicing  in  his  light,  than  all  errors  beside.  I  cannot  anticipate  a  greater 
calamity  to  the  church  than  would  follow  its  universal  inculcivtion  and 
adoption.  And  most  blessed  and  glorious,  I  am  confident,  will  be  the 
result,  when  her  ministry  everywhere  shall  rightly  understand  and  teach, 
and  their  hearers  shall  universally  admit,  the  full  ability  of  every  sinner 
to  comply  with  the  terms  of  salvation."  —  p.  52. 

Let  the  Presbytery  compare  all  this  with  the  history  of  the  Cluirch,  and 
the  doctrine  of  our  standards  on  original  sin,  total  depravity,  the  misery 
of  tiic  fall,  regeneration,  and  eflfectual  calling,  and  say  Avhether  there  is  an 
Arminian,  or  a  Pelagian,  or  a  Unitarian,  in  the  land,  who  will  not  agree 
with  Dr.  Beecher,  and  admit  '*  the  full  ability  of  every  sinner  to  comply 
with  the  terms  of  salvation,"  and  unite  with  him  in  considering  it  a 
calamity  for  the  doctrines  of  our  standards  to  be  universally  adopted  ! 

But  I  rather  think  that  such  slander  as  this  is  not  action- 
able.   Men  are  usually  prosecuted  for  slandering  one  another ; 
for  speaking  falsely  of  men  above  ground,  not  below  ground ; 
VOL   in.  33 


386  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

and  tlie  whole  Churcli  of  God  is  not  a  living  agent  to  be  the 
object  of  slander.  All  that  I  have  done  is  to  state  historical 
facts,  according  to  my  knowledge  of  history.  And  if  in  so 
doing  I  have  ever  fallen  into  error,  it  is  not  slander.  If  I 
have  misread  the  documents  left  to  us  by  the  fathers,  it  is  a 
mistake,  but  it  is  not  slander.  But  I  have  proved  the  truth 
of  my  allegations  with  respect  to  the  Church.  I  have  shown 
that  she  holds,  and  has  held  in  all  ages,  that  man  is  a  free 
agent,  but  lies  in  a  condition  of  moral  impotency ;  and  I  say 
that  this  is  no  slander  on  the  Church,  but  the  reverse.  It  is 
not  to  her  discredit,  but  to  her  honor,  that  she  believes  the 
truth.  If  I  had  said  that  the  Church  held  the  doctrine  of 
Fatalism,  and  had  failed  to  prove  it,  that  would  have  been  a 
slander  indeed.  And  now  I  ask  w^hether  Dr.  Wilson's 
charity  could  not  by  any  ingenuity  have  found  out  a  more 
favorable  construction  to  put  upon  my  course  ?  And  even 
admitting  that  I  had  fallen  into  a  mistake  in  stating  what  I 
believe  to  be  true,  could  he  not  have  found  for  my  error  a 
more  brotherly  name  ? 

I  have  not  slandered,  then,  the  Church  of  God,  in  teaching 
that  they  held  to  the  doctrine  of  man's  natural  ability  as  the 
foundation  of  his  accountable  agency,  but  have  proved  the 
truth  of  it,  from  Justin  Martyr,  A.  D.  140,  to  Dr.  Wilson's 
friend.  Dr.  Matthews,  by  an  unbroken  chain  of  historical 
extracts  ;  while  Dr.  Wilson,  by  denying  this,  and  assuming 
that  they  taught,  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that  it 
requires  no  ability  of  any  kind  in  fallen  man  to  make  him  an 
accountable  agent,  and  a  subject  of  God's  moral  government, 
has  deeply  slandered  them. 

While  on  this  subject  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his 
posterity,  he  will  seem  to  multitudes  to  have  equally  slan- 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  387 

dcrecl  them  by  his  following  statements  in  this  Presbytery. 
Dr.  Wilson  said  : 

Let  us  guard  here  against  some  mistakes.  The  doctrine  of  a  union  of 
representation  does  not  involve  in  it  the  idea  of  personal  identity.  It  does 
not  mean  that  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  the  same  identical  persons.  It 
does  not  mean  that  this  act  was  personally  and  properly  their  act.  Nor 
does  it  mean  that  the  moral  turpitude  of  7\.dam's  sin  was  transferred  to  liis 
descendants.  The  transfer  of  moral  character  makes  no  part  of  the  doc- 
trine of  imputation. 

Dr.  Wilson's  sole  remaining  charge  against  me  is 
THAT  OF  hypocrisy.  The  occasion  of  his  preferring  this  was 
the  refusal  of  Presbytery  to  institute  an  inquiry  into  the 
sentiments  I  held,  on  the  ground  of  common  fame.  Being 
dissatisfied  with  that  decision,  he  appealed  to  the  Synod ;  in 
which  court  I  defended  the  course  the  Presbytery  had  pureued, 
denied  the  existence  of  that  common  fame  which  had  been 
alleged  to  exist  and  to  furnish  ground  of  process  against  me, 
and  openly  avowed  my  faith  in  the  Confession.  It  is  in  this 
avowal  I  am  said  to  have  acted  hypocritically.  The  doctrines 
I  held  were  as  well  known  then  as  they  are  now ;  and  when  I 
spoke  of  the  Confession's  containing  the  truth,  the  whole  truth, 
and  nothing  but  the  truth,  my  words  are  to  be  interpreted  by 
the  subject  on  which  I  was  speaking,  and  are  not  to  be  taken 
out  of  the  record  and  made  to  apply  to  something  else  which 
I  was  not  talking  about.  The  entire  system  of  doctrine  con- 
tained in  the  Confession  was  not  the  matter  in  dispute.  The 
discussion  had  reference  only  to  a  few  points  of  doctrine,  con- 
cernino;  which  I.  was  char<2;ed  with  holdinfr  error.  It  is  an 
irrefragable  law  of  interpretation,  that  words  spoken  are  to  be 
understood  in  reference  only  to  the  matter  concerning  which 
they  were  uttered.  Now,  it  was  in  reference  to  these  particular 
doctrines  that  I  said  there  had  been  a  time  when  I  could  not 


388  '  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY, 

fully  accord  with  the  language  of  the  Confession ;  but  that 
since  I  had  attended  more  fully  to  the  subject,  and  had 
acquired  more  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  the  terms  em- 
ployed as  technics  at  the  time  the  Confession  was  adopted, — 
terms  now  obsolete,  but  then  well  understood, —  I  had  become 
convinced  that  instrument  did  contain  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  I  had  no  such  thought  as 
applying  this  language,  rigidly,  to  the  whole  Confession,  and 
every  particular  it  contained ;  but  I  meant  the  remark  in  refer- 
ence to  the  doctrines  concerning  which  it  was  said  my  sound- 
ness was  suspected ;  and  they  are  doctrines  of  vital  importance. 
With  respect  to  these,  I  once  more  repeat  the  declaration, 
our  Confession  teaches  the  truth,  the  whole  ti^uth,  and  noth- 
ing but  the  truth.  If,  indeed,  some  of  its  terms  are  taken 
in  the  meaning  often  attached  to  them  at  this  day,  it  speaks 
error ;  but,  receiving  its  language  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is 
alleged  the  framers  intended,  it  speaks  the  very  truth. 

Nor  did  I  say  this  for  the  sake  of  making  a  flourish,  and 
producing  popular  effect ;  and  had  the  intercourse  between 
myself  and  my  brother  Wilson  been  such  as  I  am  sorry  to 
think  it  has  not  been, —  had  he  felt  the  warm  beatings  of  rhy 
heart,  while  he  opened  his  own  to  me  in  return, —  he  would 
not  have  suspected  me  of  such  a  manoeuvre.  It  has  never 
belonged  to  my  character,  either  here  or  anywhere  else,  to 
conceal  my  feehngs  and  mask  my  sentiments.  I  always  go 
heart  first.  But  Brother  Wilson  seems  to  think  that  I  go 
head  first,  and  sometimes  rather  recklessly. 

But  suppose  there  is,  on  close  examination,  some  discrepancy 
between  my  faith  and  the  Confession, —  does  it  necessarily 
follow  that  I  see  and  hide  it  ?  That  I  have  secret  meanings, 
which  I  keep  back  from  the  public  view  7  Is  there  no  such 
thing  possible  as  a  mistake  ?    And  if  a  man  thinks  he  agrees, 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  389 

-when  he  really  differs,  must  he  be  a  hypocrite  ?  Do  men 
never  make  mistakes  who  are  admitted  to  be  honest  ?  And 
is  it  not  within  the  range  of  possibility  that  the  things  which 
I  hold  to  be  in  the  Confession  actually  are  in  it ;  and  that  it 
is  others  who  diifer  from  it,  and  not  I  7  Before  Dr.  Wilson 
can  establish  this  charge,  he  must  prove  two  things :  first, 
what  I  said ;  and,  secondly,  that  I  was  not,  and  could  not 
be,  honest  in  saying  it.  Has  he  proved  them  ?  Can  he  prove 
them  ?  He  has  not  proved  them ;  but  he  has  publicly  made 
the  charge ;  and  I  cannot  but  consider  his  course  in  this  mat- 
ter as  unkind,  unbrotherly  and  invidious.  Christian  charity 
hopeth  all  things,  and  believeth  all  things  ;  and  it  never  will 
admit  the  existence  of  sin  in  a  brother,  and  especially  a  sin  so 
odious  as  that  of  hypocrisy,  till  the  proof  is  strong. 

I  have  attempted  to  show  that  the  Confession  teaches  man's 
natural  ability  as  a  free  agent,  and  his  moral  inability  as  a 
fillen  and  lost  sinner ;  that,  on  the  subjects  of  original  sin, 
including  federal  representation,  the  covenant  with  Adam  and 
his  posterity,  the  imputation  of  sin,  the  guilt  of  it,  its  pun- 
ishment, and  the  original  bias  of  our  nature  and  will,  I  have 
taught  nothing  against  the  Confession  of  Faith.  On  the 
contrary,  all  that  I  have  written  and  avowed  on  these  sub- 
jects is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  Confession,  with  the 
views  of  the  standard  writers  in  the  Church,  and  with  the 
Bible.  I  have  shown  that  my  views  of  regeneration,  by  the 
special  influence  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  instrumentality  of  truth, 
are  expressed  fully  by  the  Larger  -and  Shorter  Catechisms, 
and  by  the  article  concerning  effectual  calling  in  the  Confes- 
sion. I  do  not  deny,  but  admit,  the  interposition  of  the 
direct  power  of  God,  so  fir  as  it  respects  the  bodily  and  nat- 
ural powers  of  man,  so  far  as  these  are  calculated  to  impede 
his  emancipation  from  sin.     Whatever  impediment  may  arise 

VOL.  m.  33* 


390  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

from  bodily  habit  or  constitution,  may  be,  and  no  doubt  is, 
operated  upon  directly ;  and  in  these  respects  I  never  denied 
or  disbelieved  that  an  exertion  of  God's  natural  power,  so  far 
as  it  respects  natural  things,  may  bew  concerned  in  the  work 
of  man's  regeneration.     This  I  have  always  believed. 

One  more  topic  remains,  to  which  I  must  solicit  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Presbytery.  Supposing  that,  in  the  explanations 
I  have  made,  I  shall  not  have  succeeded  in  convincing  all  my 
brethren  of  my  entire  agreement  with  the  Confession  and  the 
Bible  as  they  understand  both,  still  the  discrepancy  is  not 
such  as  is  inconsistent  with  the  ends  of  Church  fellowship, 
and  an  honest  subscription  to  the  Confession. 

1.  Similar  differences  have  existed  from  the  beginning. 
My  position  is  this, —  that  a  hair's  breadth  coincidence  in 
each  particular  point  never  was  made,  or  understood  or  in- 
tended to  be  made,  a  prerequisite  condition  of  adopting  the 
Confession.  Nor  has  it  ever  been  so  in  practice.  The  court 
has  only  to  decide  on  one  thing, —  whether  my  differences,  if 
I  do  differ,  are  such  as  to  vacate  the  system,  to  put  a  sword 
into  its  vitals.  If  they  are,  then  I  ought  to  be  put  out  of  the 
Church  forthwith.  But,  if  they  leave  the  system  heart-whole, 
with  all  its  great  organization  complete  and  untouched,  and 
there  is  only  a  philosophical  difference  with  respect  to  some 
of  its  parts,  then  I  say,  such  differences  have  ever  existed  in 
the  Church,  and  subscription  to  the  Confession  has  never 
been  understood  as  implying  the  contrary. 

2.  Differences  have  been  so  great  that  they  did,  at  one 
time,  produce  a  temporary  separation  between  the  Synods  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia.  These  Synods  were  divided  on 
what  were  then  called  new  measures  and  new  divinity,  and 
in  the  heat  of  strife  they  remained  apart  for  nine  years  ;   yet, 

3.  Without  any  change  of  opinion,  or  any  relinquishment 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  891 

of  their  respective  peculiarities,  they  came  together  again, 
■\vept  over  all  their  divisions  and  alienations,  and  unkind  and 
iinbrotherly  feelings  towards  each  other,  and  adopted  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  ^Yith  a  declaration  that  a  subscription  to 
it  implied  no  more  than  this, —  that  the  subscriber  believed  it 
to  contain  the  system  of  truth  taught  in  the  word  of  God.  I 
ask,  Did  these  Synods  come  together  on  the  ground  that  the 
Confession  contained  the  truth  of  God  in  the  sense  in  which 
each  understood  it  ?  Did  they  mean  by  mutual  subscription 
to  imply  that  there  was  an  exact  agreement  as  to  their  views 
in  all  things  7  Far  from  it.  They  came  together  with  better 
religious  views  and  feelings ;  they  had  found,  by  sad  experi- 
ence, that  where  contention  is  there  is  every  evil  work ;  and 
they  mutually  agreed  to  bury  the  hatchet,  and  walk  together 
under  that  compromise  which  alone  had  first  made  our 
Church,  and  under  which  she  had  grown  up  in  the  enjoyment 
of  unparalleled  prosperity,  and  the  brightest  smiles  of  Heaven. 
And  at  this  day  the  question  is,  whether  a  controversy  which 
sundered  the  Church  for  nine  years,  and  all  whose  fruits 
were  wormwood  and  gall,  shall  be  renewed,  by  making  exact 
agreement  in  all  things  essential  to  the  adoption  of  the  com- 
mon symbol ;  and  whether  those  volcanic  fires  which  have 
once  rent  the  bosom  of  the  Church  shall  now  break  forth 
anew,  and  burn  with  redoubled  fury,  desolating  in  all  direc- 
tions all  that  is  good  and  fair  ? 

That  there  have  always  existed  diversities  of  sentiment, 
which,  if  pressed  and  insisted  on,  might  have  furnished 
ground  of  separation,  I  can  show  from  various  sources. 

Three  of  the  Presidents  of  Princeton  College,  namely, 
Edwards,  AVithcrspoon  and  Davies,  held  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
new  school  on  the  subject  of  man's  natural  abihty.  These,  it 
is  admitted,  were  some  of  the  most  illustrious  men  that  the 


392  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

Church  has  ever  been  favored  to  possess ;  and  yet  they  held 
that  very  point  for  which  I  am  now  to  be  turned  out  of  the 
Church.  I  might  add  to  the  number  the  name  of  Samuel 
Stanhope  Smith,  for  he  agreed  with  them  in  this  opinion. 
But  I  am  not  now  in  possession  of  the  documentary  proof  ^ 
necessary  to  establish  this  fact.  Were  these  men  charged 
with  heresy  ?  On  the  contrary,  they  are  to  this  day  eulo- 
gized in  the  highest  strains  by  the  very  men  who  are  now  the 
champions  of  Orthodoxy  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  What 
man  has  more  exactly  or  more  fully  stated  the  doctrines  I 
hold  on  the  subject  of  natural  abihty  than  Dr.  Witherspoon, 
and  yet  who  has  been  more  extolled  by  Dr.  Greene  1 

When  Mr.  Barnes  was  tried,  Dr.  Spring  declared  that  he 
was  ready  to  sink  or  swim  with  him ;  and  yet,  after  that 
declaration.  Dr.  Spring  has  been  sent  by  the  voice  of  the 
General  Assembly  as  their  public  and  honored  representative 
to  the  Churches  of  Europe.  "WTiat,  then,  is  the  matter  which 
makes  that  so  bad  in  one  man  that  he  must  be  excommuni- 
cated, while  it  is  so  innocent  in  another  that  he  may  go  all 
over  the  world,  representing  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
United  States?  All  that  I  hold  is  the  old  approved  New 
England  divinity, —  it  is  that,  and  nothing  else.  And  all  the 
attempts  which  have  been  made  to  identify  me  with  the  New 
Haven  school,  as  that  is  represented,  are  slander.  There  is 
nothing  new  in  my  creed ;  I  learned  it  under  Dr.  Dwight ; 
and  my  preaching  is  as  sound  as  was  the  preq^hing  of  that 
illustrious  man.  If  there  is  anything  new  in  the  school  which 
has  been  named  after  Dr.  Taylor,,  it  has  not  origi7iated  or 
changed  the  faith  I  hold.  I  stand  for  myself,  and  for  the 
Confession  of  Eaith,  and  for  the  Bible ;  and  all  attempts  to 
get  a  fog  around  another  man,  and  then  say  that  I  believe 
the  same  as  he  does,  are  slanders.     I  protest  against  this 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY. 

I 

representative  heresy ;  this  plan  of  dressing  somebody  else 
■with  bear-skins,  until  you  have  made  him  an  object  of  fear 
and  horror,  and  then  to  cry  out,  "  Dr.  Beecher  believes  as 
he  does."  0  !  but  Dr.  Taylor  is  my  friend,  and  that  con- 
firms it.  Alas  !  is  every  man  a  heretic  because  his  friend  is 
unhappily  falsely  accused  of  heresy  ?  I  confess,  without  hesi- 
tation, that  I  don't  believe  Dr.  Taylor  is  worthy  of  ecclesias- 
tical disfranchisement.  He  would  be,  if  he  believed  as  some 
represent  him  to  believe ;  but  that  is  quite  a  dififerent  case. 
I  have  always  refused  to  permit  Dr.  Taylor's  opinions,  or 
those  of  any  other  man,  to  be  the-  representatives  of  mine ; 
but  I  have  as  uniformly  declared  my  disbelief  of  his  iin- 
soundness  in  the  faith^  and  have  refused  to  join  the  cry 
of  heresy  and  denunciation.  I  hold  the  peculiar  doctrines  of 
the  New  England  divinity,  as  they  were  taught  fifty  years 
ago,  and  respecting  which  Dr.  Greene  said  that  he  had  no  ob- 
jection to  them,  that  he  could  get  along  with  them  very  well. 
Nor  was  this  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Greene  alone.  The  General 
Assembly  must  have  been  of  the  same  mind,  for  they  laid 
down  a  plan  of  union  and  fellowship  between  the  Presbyterian 
Church  and  the  Churches  of  New  England,  and  for  a  long 
time  their  delegates  voted  in  each  other's  courts ;  and  to  this 
very  hour  you  give  these  men  the  right  hand  of  fellowship. 
Will  it  be  said  that  tlieir  doctrines  were  not  known  ?  Their 
doctrines  were  published  to  the  whole  world,  and  were  as  well 
known  then  as  they  arc  now  ;  and  it  was  with  a  full  knowledge 
of  these  doctrines  that  those  Churches  were  admitted  to  corre- 
spondence. Can  there  be  a  stronger  proof  that  the  sentiments 
of  the  New  England  divines  were  not  considered  heretical  7 

I  stand  sheltered,  therefore,  by  deliberate  and  reiterated 
decisions  of  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church.  I  very  well 
remember  the   commencement  of  that   arrangement.      The 


394  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

younger  Edwards,  President  of  Union  College,  was  at  the 
head  of  the  committee  who  reported  a  plan  to  the  General 
Assembly,  according  to  which  ruling-elders  and  committee- 
men were  allowed  to  sit  side  by  side  in  the  General  Assembly 
itself.  The  object  of  the  arrangement  was  the  accommodation 
and  comfort  of  that  flood  of  emigrant  piety  which  came  pour- 
ing from  New  England,  and  settling  down  in  the  midst  of 
Presbyterians,  in  all  our  new  settlements.  The  distinction, 
which  kept  brother  from  brother,  on  account  of  a  mere  dif- 
ference in  ecclesiastical  connections,  weakened  both,  and 
impaired  and  often  prevented  their  ability  to  support  the 
Gospel  among  them.  Remove  the  separating  partition,  allow 
them  to  unite,  and  they  would  both  become  strong.  When 
the  Presbyterian  Church  received  these  strangers  into  a  union 
with  herself,  she  perfectly  well  knew  the  materials  she  took, 
and  what  notions  they  held  ;  and  it  is  too  late  at  this  time  of 
day  to  turn  about  and  kick  those  out  of  the  Church  who  had 
been  received  into  it  on  a  mutual  agreement,  when  no  change 
has  taken  place  in  their  religious  belief,  and  no  stain  is 
alleged  against  their  moral  character.  Brethren  may  say,  it 
was  very  wrong  that  they  were  admitted ;  it  was  a  thing  that 
ought  never  to  have  been  done.  Very  well,  you  have  a  right 
to  your  own  opinion  on  that  question.  But  it  ivas  done ; 
and  now  you  must  restrain  your  impatience,  until  it  shall 
regularly  and  in  an  orderly  manner  be  undone.  But  you 
are  not  to  enact  ex  post  facto  laAvs,  and  hang  men  who  came 
into  your  Church  in  obedience  to  laws  then  existing.  Give 
us  fair  warning ;  take  back  your  recognition  ;  let  us  out 
unharmed,  with  as  fair  a  character  as  we  came  in  ;  and  then, 
if  any  of  us  shall  put  his  head  in,  catch  him  if  jo\x  can.  We 
are  now  in,  and  we  came  in  on  your  own  invitation.  Now, 
does  the  Church  of  God  invite  heretics  into  her  bosom,  and 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  395 

admit  tlicm  to  vote  in  licr  courts  ?  Docs  she  hold  ministerial 
fellowship  with  heretics  7  Docs  she  place  heretical  commit- 
tee-men on  the  same  bench  with  her  own  orthodox  elders  ?  It 
won't  do.  It  is  going  too  fur.  The  Church  has  declared  that 
what  I  hold  is  not  heresy ;  and  she  has  made  the  declaration  in 
various  ways,  and  in  almost  every  possible  form.  Even  the 
last  Assembly  refused  to  dissolve  the  existing  alliance,  and 
only  recommended  that  no  more  Churches  be  formed  on  that 
plan.  But  here  is  Dr.  Wilson's  own  letter.  When  he  wrote 
it,  he  knew  that  I  had  held  this  doctrine,  and  he  had  no  evi- 
dence that  I  had  ever  denounced  it.  And  here  is  Dr.  Miller's 
letter,  who  knew  my  sentiments  perfectly,  and,  nevertheless, 
urged  me  vehemently  to  come  to  Philadelphia,  to  be  a  sort  of 
pillar  there,  and,  according  to  his  own  flattering  representa- 
tions, to  exert  a  tranquillizing  influence  amid  all  their  con- 
tentions, cfndcavoring  to  make  me  believe  that  I  was  the  man, 
of  all  others,  best  calculated  to  accomplish  that  great  work. 
Does  Dr.  Miller  not  know  what  is  heresy  ?  Would  he  per- 
suade me  to  come  and  put  my  hand  to  the  Confession  of  Faith 
against  a  good  conscience  ?  Never.  I  have,  therefore,  every 
possible  proof  that  in  embracing  the  Confession  I  have  done 
that  which  the  Church  and  the  luminaries  of  the  Church 
thought  consistent  with  a  godly  sincerity. 

As  to  Dr.  Wilson,  he  had  evidence  of  my  heresy  as  far 
back  as  1817.  He  had  all  that  time  to  ponder  upon  it,  and 
yet  he  united  in  calling  me  ;  and  when  I  came  at  his  call, 
met  me  with  a  back  stroke.  Now,  if  the  Church  is  convinced 
of  her  error,  and  chooses  to  tighten  her  cords,  and  to  exclude 
from  her  communion  all  who  hold  the  original  doctrines  of 
the  New  England  divines,  free  from  all  alleged  admixtures, 
she  certainly  has  a  right  to  do  it.  She  may,  if  she  chooses, 
turn  out  all  her  New  England   cliildren,  after   they  have 


396  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

done  so  much  to  build  her  walls,  and  extend  her  influence 
and  power.  But  she  has  no  right  to  make  that  a  crime 
which  she  has  herself  legitimatized,  and  invited  us  to  do,  and 
never  turned  out  any  for  doing.  I  will  now  draw  my  plea 
toward  a  close  with  some  miscellaneous  remarks. 

This  Western  world  is  a  great  world ;  and  it  needs  great 
influences  to  bring  it  out  from  the  state  of  chaos  which  has 
grown  from  the  mixed  character  of  its  population.  It  ex- 
hibits to  the  eye  of  the  philosopher  and  the  Christian  an 
entirely  new  spectacle.  Never  till  now  was  the  scriptural 
prediction  so  near  to  a  hteral  fulfilment,  that  a  nation  should 
be  born  in  a  day. 

It  is  destined,  and  that  very  soon,  to  be  the  greatest  of  the 
nations  ;  and  its  chief  glory  is,  that  God  has  established  in  it 
the  principles  of  his  truth,  and  seems  to  have  selected  it  as  a 
theatre  on  which  to  display  their  happiest  effects.  Nor  is 
there  any  society  of  men  whom  God  has  favored  and  honored 
with  opportunity  to  accomplish  a  greater  work  than  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  these  United  States.  This  may  be  said 
with  sober  truth,  and  without  any  invidious  comparison.  And 
whatsoever  she  is  able  to  do  is  most  imperiously  needed.  The 
interests  of  this  whole  West,  the  interests  of  our  nation  and 
of  the  world,  the  interests  of  liberty  and  of  rehgion,  demand 
it  at  her  hands.  If  the  Presbyterian  Church  shall  preserve 
harmony  within  her  borders,  if  her  ministers  shall  proceed 
on  the  ground  of  bearing  and  forbearing,  there  are  no  limits 
to  the  power  which  this,  our  beautiful  and  blessed  Church, 
shall  be  able  to  send  forth,  to  give  strength  and  glory  to  the 
land.  But,  if  she  shall  divide,  woe 's  the  day  !  —  it  may  be 
like  that  day  described  in  the  Eevelations,  when  those  who 
have  been  enriched  by  her  merchandise  shall  stand  at  a  dis- 
tance, and,  beholding  her  burnings,  cry  out,  Alas  !  alas  !  that 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  397 

in  one  day  so  great  riches  should  come  to  desolation.  Look 
to  it !  Brethren,  a  little  precaution,  a  little  kindness,  a  little 
of  that  charity  which  restored  the  two  Synods  to  each  other's 
fellowship,  thereby  laying  the  foundation  for  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  will  carry  us  safely  over  this  exigency,  and  make 
us  a  great  and  undivided  people,  terrible  to  God's  adversaries 
as  an  army  with  banners. 

But,  should  you  choose  an  opposite  course,  to-morrow's  sun 
may  not  have  gone  down  before  you  may  have  cut  asunder 
the  cords  of  our  unity  and  strength,  and  broken  our  Church 
up  into  fragments. 

Mind  is  a  difficult  thing  to  associate  with  mind ;  and  when 
you  have  got  them  together,  it  is  a  difficult  and  a  delicate  thing 
to  keep  the  union  unbroken ;  it  is  like  broken  bones,  which 
are  commencing  to  reunite, —  one  unguarded  touch  may,  in  a 
moment,  sunder  them  again ;  and  that  the  Devil  knows  right 
well.  Yet  it  is  comparatively  easy  to  keep  men  together 
who,  by  long  habit,  have  been  accustomed  to  march  shoulder 
to  shoulder.  It  is  easy,  in  comparison,  to  keep  onward  with 
the  stream  of  grace  and  the  breathings  of  the  Spirit ;  but  in 
an  evil  hour  let  the  bonds  of  her  unity  be  sundered,  and  then 
bring  the  Church  together  again  if  you  can.  Remember  that 
she  contains  elements  of  strife  such  as  were  never  before 
gathered  together  for  the  production  of  evil.  Consider  that 
there  are  within  these  United  States  notions  and  feelings 
which  lead  to  nullification.  Let  that  spirit  once  get  into  the 
Church,  and  let  it  cut  oft'  one  great  section  of  our  communion, 
do  you  suppose  the  residue  will  long  hold  together  1  If, 
indeed,  we  were  only  to  be  separated  into  two  parts  or  three, 
and  then  could  respectively  abide  in  peace  and  quiet,  the  dis- 
memberment might  not  be  an  event  so  deeply  to  be  deplored ; 
nay,  it  would,  perhaps,  be  advantageous,  that  the  two  sections 

VOL.  in.  34 


398  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

of  the  Church,  between  whom  some  unpleasant  bickerings 
have  taken  place,  should,  like  Abraham  and  Lot,  agree  to 
part  their  flocks,  to  preserve  the  general  peace.  But.  alas  ! 
it  will  not  be  so.  Our  Churches  are  all  on  the  Presbyterial 
foundation.  The  heretical  parties  mutually  denounced  have 
it  not  in  their  power  to  say  to  each  other,  If  you  will  go  to 
the  right,  then  we  will  go  to  the  left ;  or,  if  you  prefer  the 
left,  then  we  will  depart  to  the  right.  They  are  chained  to 
the  sml,  and  must  continue  to  mingle  together.  We  shall 
preach,  and  you  Avill  preach.  One  will  claim  the  Church,  and 
the  other  will  claim  the  Church.  The  contention  will  grow 
sharper  and  sharper,  the  love  of  property  mingling  now  in 
the  strife,  till  there  will  be  lawsuits  in  all  directions.  And 
then  where  will  our  hearts  be  ?  Where  will  be  the  blessed 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  1  Where  will  be  the  work  of 
missions  ?  Where  will  be  our  societies  for  education  ?  Where 
will  be  the  rising  institutions  of  the  West,  when  all  our 
strength,  and  all  our  property,  and  all  our  influence  and 
power,  have  been  wasted  in  mutual  litigations  and  mutual  re- 
vilings  ?  The  devil  will  utter  a  scream  of  joy  at  a  spectacle 
so  worthy  of  his  most  earnest  aspirations.  He  had  begun 
to  think  that  he  must  take  leave  of  the  West,  that  he  must 
abandon  his  long-cherished  hope  of  getting  ultimate  posses- 
sion of  this  great  and  wide  and  fertile  valley.  But  the  news 
of  the  Sacramental  Host  of  God's  own  people  falling  out 
and  fighting  with  each  other  will  heal  his  deadly  wound,  and 
bid  all  his  hopes  revive.  No,  brethren;  the  Presbyterian 
Church  cannot  divide,  without  delaying  the  hour  of  her  victory 
for  more  than  half  a  century.  If  we  witness  that  lamentable 
day,  we  must  live  and  die  in  the  midst  of  contentions ;  and 
then,  when  we  have  sunk  amidst  the  ruins  of  Christian  char- 


TRIAL  BEFORE  PRESBYTERY.  399 

itj  and  the  desolation  of  all  our  best  hopes,  our  children  may 
come  up  and  finish  the  bad  work  which  we  have  begun. 

I  have  a  word  to  address  to  you  that  respects  my  views  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith  and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  It  was  asked,  in  a  letter  read  by  Dr.  Wilson,  who 
it  was  that  got  up  a  new  Confession  of  Faith  in  New  Eng- 
land 7  I  cannot  answer  the  question.  But  I  can  tell  who 
put  down  that  attempt.  The  scheme  was  got  up,  I  believe, 
in  Connecticut,  and  it  was  brought  by  the  editor  of  the 
Evangelist  before  the  General  Association  of  Massachusetts, 
and  I  was  the  man  who  made  successful  opposition  to  it  in 
that  Association.  I  never  lifted  a  hand  to  revise  or  improve 
tlK3  Confession  of  Faith ;  and  I  never  shall  do  so,  while  I  hold 
the  doctrines  of  natural  ability  as  true,  and  while  I  have 
found  them  useful  in  doing  away  the  notions  of  fatality  and 
Antinomianism.  I  have  never  preached  them,  except  for  a 
particular  and  definite  purpose  ;  just  as  a  physician  gives 
calomel  to  a  patient  in  a  fever,  and  when  the  fever  is  broken 
then  administers  bark  and  tonics.  I  have  not  gone  on  preach- 
ing my  own  views  blindfold.  But  when  I  thought  I  had 
preached  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  long  enough  to  root 
out  the  opposite  errors,  then  I  have  brought  up  the  doctrine 
of  moral  dependence.  And  I  challenge  any  one  to  find  an 
Arminian  in  sentiment  in  any  of  those  Churches  to  which  it 
has  been  my  privilege  ta  minister.  It  is  impossible  to  preach 
either  the  doctrine  of  free  agency  or  dependence,  prominently, 
for  any  length  of  time,  and  not  have  some  men  run  away  with 
one  or  the  other  into  error.  Dr.  Wilson,  for  instance,  preaches 
the  doctrine  of  dependence,  and  there  are  some  who  say  that 
he  is  a  fatalist ;  and,  if  I  am  not  misinformed,  there  are  some 
of  his  hearers  who  push  his  system  into  absolute  Antinomian- 
ism.    Is  Dr.  Wilson  to  blame  for  this  7     Not  at  all ;  unless, 


400  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

indeed,  he  omits  to  preach  the  doctrines  which  look  the  other 
way.  Both  are  true,  and  both  must  be  preached;  and  if 
one  only  is  held  up  to  view,  the  public  mind  will  infallibly 
get  a  wrong  impression.  The  proportion  in  which  the  two 
branches  of  the  system  are  to  be  dwelt  upon  must  depend 
upon  circumstances.  If  a  man  goes  where  Antinomianism  is 
prevalent,  he  must  preach  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  and 
free  agency ;  on  the  contrary,  if  he  is  called  to  labor  where 
Arminianism  is  rife,  he  must  preach  the  doctrine  of  moral 
dependence.  Let  a  man  advocate  whichever  side  of  the  con- 
troversy he  chooses,  and  let  him  do  it  ever  so  judiciously  and 
wisely,  there  will  always  be  novices  in  the  Church  who  will 
run  his  sentiments  into  extremes,  and  will  be  guilty  of  much 
extravagance. 

I  suppose  that  my  opinions,  when  rightly  understood,  are 
very  nearly  the  same  as  those  of  Dr.  Wilson.  Does  he  sup- 
pose that  I  am  not  sensible  of  the  danger  that  must  arise  from 
carrying  them  to  extremes  ?  I  am  not  insensible  to  it.  I 
am  as  aware  of  danger  as  he  can  be.  There  will  always  be 
men  who  are  incapable  of  discrimination  ;  men  half  educated, 
full  of  zeal,  but  destitute  of  knowledge  and  prudence.  Luther 
was  vexed  almost  to  death  with  such,  and  so  am  I,  and  so  is 
Dr.  Wilson.  We  should  unite;  we  are  united.  While  I 
preach  natural  ability,  I  do  and  always  Avill  preach  moral 
dependence ;  and  if  I  find  any  among  my  people  who  carry 
the  doctrine  to  an  extreme,  I  put  the  sword  of  the  Spirit  upon 
them.  And  if  others  carry  matters  to  an  extreme  on  the 
opposite  side,  then  I  turn  about  and  fight  them  too.  That  is 
the  stand  which  every  minister  is  called  to  take.  He  is 
placed  upon  his  watch-tower,  that  he  may  guard  against  the 
approach  of  danger  alike  in  every  direction.  I  am  not  so 
under  the  influence  of  a  theory  as  to  make  everything  yield 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  .      401 

to  that.  My  people  knoAV  that  I  am  not  always  banging 
their  ears  with  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability.  I  alternate 
the  two  edges  of  the  sword,  and  smite  as  to  mo  seems  good ; 
that  I  may  guard  my  people  on  either  side,  and  train  them 
up  to  become  perfect  men  in  Christ  Jesus.  I  think  that  m 
some  parts  of  the  Church  enough  has  been  said  on  the  doc- 
trine of  natural  ability.  I  thought  so  in  Boston,  and  there- 
fore I  ceased  from  pressing  those  particular  views.  Dr. 
AYoods  said  that  I  had  rightly  understood  the  type  of  the 
disease.  I  had  done  with  the  calomel,  and  it  was  time  for 
the  bark.  I  am  aware  that  Asa  Rand  has  said  that  the 
change  was  induced  by  other  considerations.  But  he  mis- 
takes my  motives.  I  hold  that  we  are  not  to  take  a  whole 
apothecary's  shop  of  medicine  and  throw  it  upon  the  peo- 
ple at  once,  but  that  we  are  to  administer  it  judiciously  in 
measure,  according  to  the  state  of  the  pulse.  A  stranger 
comes  in,  in  the  second  stage  of  the  disease,  and  sees  the 
physician  administering  tonics,  and  goes  away  and  makes  a 
great  outcry,  and  calls  the  doctor  a  quack,  because  he  admin- 
isters bark  in  a  fever.  He  runs  round  among  his  acquaint- 
ance, and  very  sagely  predicts  that  the  patient  will  die  ;  he 
goes  from  house  to  house,  and  stirs  up  an  excitement,  that  he 
may  get  the  ignorant  quack  drummed  out  of  town.  And, 
after  all,  what  does  he  prove  ?  Why,  that  he  himself  is  a 
novice,  and  a  busy-body,  propagating  slander.  There  is  a 
point  where  bark  is  needed, —  where  laxatives  must  cease  and 
tonics  begin, —  and  it  is  the  office  of  medical  science  to  ascer- 
tain when  that  moment  has  arrived.  I  am  as  much  afraid  of 
having  the  doctrine  of  free  agency  in  unskilful  hands  as  Dr. 
Wilson  is.  I  am  as  much  afraid  of  tearing  up  the  foundations 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  he  can  be.  If  be  will  read  my 
thoughts  upon  creeds,  he  will  find  that  I  am  as  much  attached 

VOL.    ITL  34^ 


402  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

to  creeds  as  he  is  ;  and  if  he  will  but  consent  to  bear  with  me 
and  try  me  for  a  while,  he  will  find  me  standing  upon  the 
Confession  of  Faith. 

A  few  thoughts  upon  creeds  in  general,  and  our  own  Con- 
fession in  particular,  and  I  have  done. 

Creeds,  it  is  well  known,  originated  early,  in  the  assaults 
of  error  upon  fundamental  truth;  and  were  brought  pro- 
gressively, as  collision  and  discrimination  elicited  the  truth, 
into  the  well-defined  systems  which  we  now  possess. 

The  design  was,  and  ever  has  been,  to  repel  the  innova- 
tions of  fundamental  error^  and  unite  the  faithful  in  Christ 
Jesus  in  fellowship  and  action,  for  the  extension  of  his  king- 
dom upon  earth. 

The  right  of  men  to  associate  for  the  maintenance  and 
propagation  of  truth  and  worship  in  accordance  with  their 
understanding  of  the  Bible,  expressed  in  epitomized  form, 
cannot  be  denied.  It  defrauds  none  of  their  rights  of  con- 
science to  worship  without  creeds,  who  choose  to  do  so,  while 
it  is  essential  to  the  liberty  of  conscience  of  those  who  desire 
to  be  associated  in  this  manner ;  of  which  none  will  be  likely 
to  complain  but  those  who  desire  to  make  their  own  con- 
science the  rule  of  other  men's  judgments.  The  efiicacy  of 
creeds,  to  maintain  the  purity  of  truth  and  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  has  been  great.  They  have  not,  indeed,  been  omnip- 
otent in  repelling  the  encroachments  of  error,  or  securing 
entirely  the  unity  of  the  Church  ;  but  it  follows  not  from  this 
that  they  have  been  powerless.  The  question  is  not  how 
m.uch  they  have  failed  to  accomplish,  but  how  much  they  have 
done,  and  what  had  been  the  condition  of  the  Church  without 
these  memorials  of  anterior  discussions  and  attainments.  It 
must  have  been  to  theology  like  the  blotting  out  of  civilization 
by  the  northern  barbarians,  or  the  oblivion  of  all  experience 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  40^ 

to  coiiiiuiiC  generations,  consifi'nino;  the  -world  in  relij^ion  and 
science  to  the  impotency  of  an  everlasting  infancy. 

Creeds  have  indeed  been  the  occasion  of  controversy  ;  but 
•\ve  might  as  well  deplore  the  action  of  the  atraosphere, 
because  thunder-storms  and  tornadoes  sometimes  attend  it. 
To  the  discussions  of  the  Reformation  Ave  owe  the  emancipa- 
tion of  the  world,  the  rights  of  free  inquiry,  the  rights  of  con- 
science, the  supreme  authority  of  the  Bible,  the  principles  of 
its  exposition,  and  the  great  principles  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty. 

They  were  the  battle  begun, —  the  conflict  of  mind  with 
brute  force, —  which  will  not  terminate  till  the  world  is  free. 
Our  own  independence  is  the  fruit  of  it,  and  the  overturnings 
which  shake  the  world,  and  will  shake  it  till  knowledge  and 
science  cover  the  earth,  are  the  consummation  of  that  great 
conflict. 

It  was  the  creeds  of  the  Reformation,  also,  and  the  zeal  of 
holy  men  for  them,  which  held  Protestant  nations  together 
against  the  combinations  of  despotic  force,  and  thus  secured 
the  permanent  action  of  the  great  principles  which  were 
developed  ;  and  they  have  stood  as  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  bond  of  peace,  to  break  the  force  of  temptation  to  apos- 
tasy,—  to  strengthen  in  a  period  of  declension  the  things  that 
remain,  and  to  become  rallying-points  and  means  of  a  spiritual 
restoration.  The  thirty-nine  articles  have  held  the  Episcopal 
Church  through  all  her  periods  of  declension,  adversity,  and 
chanire :  and  thoucrh  once  almost  a  dead  letter,  are  now 
powerfully  instrumental  in  her  glorious  evangelical  resurrec- 
tion. So  the  standards  of  Scotland,  and  Geneva,  and  Ger- 
many, held  their  several  Churches  like  so  many  anchors, 
while  the  enemy  came  in  like  a  flood,  but  are  now  the  power- 
ful means  by  which  God  is  preparing  to  bring  back  their 


404  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

prosperity  like  the  waves  of  tlie  sea.  In  New  England, 
where,  for  a  little  time,  the  creeds  fell  into  a  partial  disrepute, 
they  are  coming  into  remembrance  with  renovated  power  and 
honor.  They  were,  during  half  her  history,  estabhshed  by 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  law ;  and  through  the  latter  half 
maintained  the  confidence  and  affections  of  the  orthodox 
churches  to  an  extent  equal  to  what  they  have  ever  received 
anywhere.  And  though  the  ministry  did  not  subscribe  them 
as  the  condition  of  licensure  or  ordination,  they  were  ex- 
amined closely  in  respect  to  the  doctrines  and  experimental 
religion  they  inculcate  ;  and  no  man  with  Pelagian  heresies 
in  head,  or  heart,  could  any  sooner  get  into  the  Orthodox 
Congregational  Churches  of  New  England  than  he  could  enter 
the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Shorter  Catechism,  from  generation  to  generation,  has 
been  taught  in  the  families  of  the  faithful,  and  was  as  uniform 
and  almost  as  venerated  an  inmate  as  the  Bible.  It  was  the 
knowledge  that  the  doctrines  of  this  Catechism  were  the  stand- 
ard doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  which  made  them 
willing  to  waive  their  denominational  peculiarities  of  Church 
order,  and  pour  their  floods  of  pious  emigrants,  and  prayers, 
and  contributions,  into  the  Presbyterian  Churches  at  the  West, 
without  lifting  a  finger  for  a  Congregational  organization, — 
a  form  so  dear  to  them,  that,  had  it  been  assailed  on  their 
own  territory,  they  would  have  laid  life  down  in  its  defence. 
They  gave  up  their  own  Church  order,  in  respect  to  the  West, 
on  the  ground  of  evangelical  expediency,  and  their  confidence 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  loving  and  maintaining  the 
same  doctrines  as  themselves.  In  the  twenty-five  years  that 
I  have  pleaded  the  cause  of  the  missions  and  institutions  of  the 
West,  and  in  my  last  and  most  successful  effort,  I  never 
heard,  in  a  single  instance,  the  objection  made,  "  The  money 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  405 

is  going  out  of  our  own  Church,  to  build  up  another  denomi- 
nation." If  it  be  true  that  there  are  any  conspiring  to  change 
the  standards  of  our  Church,  I  have  a  right  to  say,  from  what 
I  know,  that,  whoever  the  conspirators  may  be,  they  are  not 
.  the  ministers  or  Churches  of  New  England,  nor  those  who 
emigrate  from  New  England. 

What  we  have  now  chief  occasion  to  guard  against  is; 
the  repetition  of  the  fliults  of  other  days,  in  relying  too 
exclusively  on  the  letter  of  our  creeds,  to  prevent  apostasy, 
and  perpetuate  the  purity  and  power  of  the  Church. 

Experience  has  evinced  that  the  generations  of  living  men 
■will  govern  the  world,  in  spite  of  any  possible  legislation  of 
those  who  have  passed  away ;  and  that  the  only  way  to  per- 
petuate creeds  and  constitutions  is  to  perpetuate  that  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord  which  will  make  them  as  accept- 
able to  the  coming  as  they  are  to  the  existing  generation. 

This'  is  the  import  of  the  Proverb,  that  a  living  dog  is 
better  than  a  dead  lion.  It  was  in  this  respect  that  our 
Puritan  fathers  committed  an  oversight.  The  public  senti- 
•ment  of  their  day  was  so  united  and  efficientj  and  their  laws 
and  creeds  so  well  ordered  and  efficacious,  that  it  seems 
scarcely  to  have  occurred  to  them  that  they  should  not  live 
forever,  or  that  the  impulse  they  had  given  to  them  would 
not  carry  them  down  through  all  generations.  They  fell, 
therefore,  into  an  unseemly  confidence  in  the  short-metre 
government  of  the  ii\mily,  Church  and  commonwealth,  by 
power,  instead  of  the  kind  and  winning  influence  of  argument 
and  affection,  and  that  religious  and  moral  culture  by  which 
God  is  accustomed  to  fashion  aright  the  heart.  The  conse- 
quence was,  that  their  creeds  and  ecclesiastical  laws  began  to 
operate  gradually  upon  necks  and  hearts  unaccustomed  to  the 
yoke,  until  at  length  away  went  colleges,  and  creeds,  and 


406  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

funds,  and  ChurcheSj  and  consecrated  property,  by  the  force 
of  laws  which  the  Hving  made,  in  contravention  of  the  sacred 
intentions  of  the  dead. 

There  is  a  lesson  which  the  Church  has  been  slow  to  learn, 
and  yet  must  learn  before  her  unbroken  energies  and  cordial 
and  united  action  can  be  thrown  upon  the  world.  It  is  the 
medium  between  requiring  too  little,  or  too  m.uch.  The  mind 
of  man  is  so  constructed  that  exact  agreement  in  everything 
cannot  be  secured  by  persuasion  or  by  force.  Even  the 
Romish  Church,  with  the  world  in  chains  and  her  foot  upon 
the  neck  of  nations,  could  by  no  force  or  terror  prevent  the 
free-born  mind  from  thinking,  or  compel  it  to  exact  unity  of 
speculation ;  and  much  less  can  it  be  done  now,  and  in  our 
nation.  Ecclesiastical  authority  has  lost  its  terrors,  and  civil 
coercion  is  unknown,  and  original  investigation  is  the  order 
of  the  day, —  proving  all  things,  to  hold  fast  that  which  is 
good.  The  result,  in  any  communion,  of  attempting  a 
government  of  creeds,  verbatim  et  literatim^  would  be  form- 
ality and  debility  and  endless  divisions,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  fanaticism  on  the  other.  The  monitory  voice  of  experi-^ 
ence  on  this  subject  is  loud  and  urgent.  The  stern  exactions 
of  the  English  Church  drove  out  the  Puritans,  whose  virtues 
she  needed,  and  whose  mildly  administered  order  might  have 
benefited  them;  while  the  coerced  separation  produced  the 
Revolution,  and  the  eccentric  zeal  of  the  Commonwealth,  and 
the  formality  and  heresy  which  attended  the  reaction. 

A  similar  course  of  urgent  restriction  by  creeds,  and  of 
impatient  zeal  bursting  from  it  by  revivals  of  extravagance 
and  excess,  passed  over  Germany,  and  prepared  the  way  first 
for  dead  orthodoxy,  and  next  for  rationalism.  And  in  the 
same  manner  did  the  heresy  of  Church  and  state,  in  the  time 
of  Whitfield  and  the  Tenants,  produce  separations  and  excess, 


TRIAL  BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  407 

which  made  the  one  fanatical,  to  the  disgrace  of  revivals  for 
half  a  century,  and  the  other  cold  and  formal,  till,  in  leaning 
away  from  zeal  without  knowledge,  they  fell  first  into  dead 
orthodoxy,  which  was  followed  next  by  the  Pelagian  and 
Arian  and  Arminian  heresies. 

For  many  years  our  own  Church  has  rested  from  these 
collisions  and  alternations  of  ultra  zeal.  United  by  the  com- 
prehensive, cordial  subscription  to  the  doctrines  of  our  Con- 
fession, ''  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrines  taught  in  the 
holy  Scriptures,"  implying  a  bona  fide  agreement  in  the  fun- 
damental doctrines,  as  they  have  been  brought  out  in  the  con- 
troversies of  the  Church,  and  expounded  in  opposition  to 
Arian  and  Unitarian  and  Papal  and  Pelagian  errors,  but 
never  intended  or  understood  as  expressing  an  exact  agree- 
ment in  speculations  or  language  on  any  subject.  On  the 
contrary,  those  who  framed  the  Westminster  Confession  and 
Catechisms,  and  those  who  adopted  them  as  the  bond  of  union 
to  our  Church,  differed  in  speculation  and  phraseology  on 
some  of  the  same  points  that  the  sons  of  the  Church  differ 
about  now  ;  but  never,  till  recently,  have  they  been  made  the 
ground  of  formal  accusations  of  heresy,  and  regular  ecclesi- 
astical animadversion.  And  now  the  question  cannot  be 
Avhether  one  side  or  the  other  shall  be  expelled  from  the  Church 
as  hypocrites  and  heretics.  We  came  in  on  both  sides  with 
the  knowledge  of  these  circumstantial  varieties  of  opinion  and 
language,  and  in  every  form  of  recognition  were  made  welcome, 
and  assured  of  the  protection  of  the  Church ;  and  on  neither 
side  can  we  be  stigmatized  or  expelled,  without  a  breach  of 
covenant,  and  the  action  and  injustice  of  ex  j^ost  facto  laws. 

The  only  question  is,  whether  we  will  dissolve  partnership, 
or  attempt  its  continuance  upon  the  new  conditions  of  exact 
agreement  in  speculation  and  language  on  every  subject,  as 


408  VIEWS    OF  THEOLOGY. 

well  as  on  fundamental  doctrine.  Whether  the  exposition  of 
the  Confession  which  I  have  given,  on  the  subject  of  the 
natural  ability  of  man  as  a  free  agent,  and  his  moral  inability 
as  a  totally-depraved  sinner;  of  original  sin,  as  including 
federal  liability  to  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  as  operating  to 
the  production  of  actual  sin,  not  by  force  upon  the  will,  or 
any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  determining  it  to  evil,  but  by 
an  effectual,  universal  bias  to  actual  sin ;  and  of  regeneration 
as  a  change  of  character,  produced  not  by  omnipotent  action 
alone,  but  by  the  immediate  and  infallible  influence  of  God's 
word  and  Spirit :  whether  the  exposition  of  these  doctrines, 
sustained  by  the  language  of  the  Confession,  and  corroborated 
by  unbroken  exposition  from  the  primitive  Church  to  this  day, 
confirmed  in  the  line  of  the  most  approved  Presbyterian 
expositors,  Calvin,  Turretin  and  Witherspoon,  and  the  great 
balance  of  bibical  critics  and  expositors,  shall  be  reversed  and 
stigmatized  as  heresy ;  and  the  imprimatur  of  the  Church 
be  given  to  the  doctrine  that  man  possesses  no  ability  of  any 
kind  to  obey  the  Gospel, —  that  original  sin  forces  and  deter- 
mines the  will  to  actual  sin,  by  an  absolute  necessity  of  nature, 
—  that  adult  total  depravity  is  involuntary,  and  the  result  of 
a  constitution  acting  by  the  power  of  a  natural  and  necessary 
cause, —  and  that  regeneration  is  a  change  of  the  natural  con- 
stitution, by  the  direct  omnipotence  of  the  Spirit,  without  any 
influential  agency  of  the  word  of  God  ?  Such  an  exposition 
the  Church,  if  it  seem  good  to  her,  has  the  power  of  making ; 
but  not  the  right  of  giving  to  her  exposition  a  retrospective 
action,  to  affect  character,  and  ecclesiastical  standing,  and 
vested  rights. 

But  the  time  hastens,  as  it  would  seem,  when  our  Church 
must  decide  whether  the  examples  of  past  abortive  effort  for 
exact   identity  in  speculation  and  language,   with  all   their 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  409 

mournful  consequences,  shall  be  for  our  warning,  or  for  our 
example ;  and  -Nvhether  the  coming  fifty  years  shall  be  years 
of  schism,  and  impotency,  and  confusion  worse  confounded, 
or  whether,  like  a  band  of  brothers,  we  shall  move  on  under 
the  so.me  auspices  which  hitherto  have  concentrated  in  our 
Church  the  energies  of  the  East,  and  the  West,  and  the 
North,  and  the  South,  till  our  victorious  efforts,  with  those  of 
other  denominations  who  love  our  common  Lord,  shall,  under 
his  guidance  and  power,  terminate  in  the  universal  victories 
of  the  latter  day.  And  never  was  there  a  moment  when  a 
little  panic  of  alarm,  or  impatience  of  feeling,  may  turn,  for 
good  or  for  evil,  the  life-giving  or  destroying  waters  of  such  a 
flood  down  through  distant  generations. 

The  consequences  of  new  and  more  restricted  terms  of 
communion  are  too  legible  in  past  experience,  and  too  manifest 
to  unerring  anticipation,  to  need  labored  exposition  or  fervent 
expostulation.  And  nothing  assuredly  could  precipitate  our 
beloved  Church  upon  the  disastrous  alternative,  but  such  an 
abandonment  of  Heaven  as  we  do  not  believe  in ;  and  such  a 
consequent  infatuation  of  alarm  and  violence  of  passion,  as 
would  disregard  alike  both  argument  and  expostulation,  and 
with  closed  eye  and  deafened  car  rush  upon  destruction.  An 
event  which  we  chceringly  believe  his  mercy  will  avert. 

The  means  of  our  preservation  are  obvious  and  easy. 

There  will  be,  in  a  Church  so  extensive  as  our  own,  un- 
avoidably some  diversities  of  doctrinal  phraseology  in  our  com- 
munications,—  theological  provincialisms  of  men  ahke  warm- 
hearted in  their  belief  in  the  doctrinal  and  experimental  views 
of  our  standards.  These,  as  they  pass  from  one  department 
of  the  Church  to  another,  we  must  not  attempt  to  compel  by 
force  to  change  the  dialect  by  which,  from  maternal  lips,  the 
truth  was  breathed  into  their  infant  minds,  and  made  effectual 

VOL.  III.  35 


410  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

in  their  conversion,  and  made  sacred  by  the  association  of 
theological  instruction. 

Such  sudden  unclothings  of  thought,  for  new  and  unac- 
customed habiliments,  are  impossible.  And  yet,  patience  and 
kindness  on  the  part  of  the  presbyteries  and  fathers  of  the 
Church  will  easily  secure  to  all  the  purposes  of  edification 
an  assimilation  which  years  of  discourtesy  and  contention 
cannot  compel. 

We  ought,  indeed,  to  speak  the  same  things  ;  but  this 
means  not  the  same  words,  but  -the  same  doctrines.  Our 
Confession  and  Catechisms  were  intended  as  concise  definitions, 
and  not  as  furnishing  the  entire  vocabulary  of  words  in  which 
their  doctrines  shall  be  preached.  The  Bible,  itself,  does  not 
confine  us  to  its  own  phraseology ;  otherwise  all  exposition 
and  preaching  would  be  superseded  by  the  simple  reading  of 
the  Bible.  And  yet,  where  the  terms  of  the  Confession  are 
grateful,  and  the  language  of  a  strange  dialect  the  occasion  of 
misconception  and  fear,  I  would  not  purposely  offend  or  fail 
to  edify,  by  finding  out  acceptable  words ;  but,  as  Paul  would 
do,  become  all  things  to  all  men,  that  if  possible  I  might  save 
some.  Much  less  would  I  speak  slightly  of  our  creeds,  and 
the  phrases  which  time  and  association  had  rendered  dear  to 
the  people  of  God.  But  I  should  expect,  in  return,  in  my 
own  congregation,  the  same  liberty  of  speech  which  I  accorded 
to  others,  and  the  same  deference  of  courtesy  to  familiar 
phrases  and  cherished  associations  which  I  practised;  and 
with  a  concihatory  spirit,  and  a  small  share  of  common  sense 
and  good  manners,  the  Church  from  end  to  end  might  be  quiet 
from  all  agitation  on  the  subject. 

Presbytery  now  took  a  recess.     After  the  recess  the  roll 
was  called  by  the  Moderator,  and  the  members  in  succession 


TRIAL   BEFORE   PRESBYTERY.  411 

had  an  opportunity  of  delivering  their  sentiments  upon  the 
case.  Several  availed  themselves  of  the  privilege ;  but,  in 
most  cases,  it  was  waived.  The  roll  being  gone  through, 
Presbytery  took  a  recess  until  the  afternoon.  In  the  after- 
noon, the  members  of  Presbytery  were  called  upon  to  vote 
separately  on  each  charge,  by  saying  Sustained^  or  Not 
Sustained. 

The  first  charge  being  then  read,  the  vote  upon  it  stood  as 
follows  : 

Sustained. — Messrs.  Daniel  ITayJen,  Francis  Monfort,  Ludwell  G. 
Gaines,  Sayres  Gasley,  Atlrien  Aton,  .J.  Burt,  William  Skillinger,  Israel 
Brown,  Peter  II.  Kemper,  A.  B.  Anch*ews,  Andrew  Ilarvey,  William 
Cuniback.  — 12. 

JVot  Sustained.  —  Messrs.  Andrew  S.  Morison,  Thomas  J.  Biggs,  Bcnj. 
Graves,  Artemas  Bullard,  F.  Y.  Vail,  A.  T.  Rankin,  Augustus  Pomroy, 
Thomas  Brainerd,  George  Beechcr,  Robert  Porter,  John  Archard,  Henry 
Hageman,  J.  G.  Burnet,  Bryce  R.  Blair,  J.  C.  Tunis,  J.  Lyon,  W.  Carey, 
J.  D.  Low,  S.  Hageman,  T.  Mitchell,  W.  Owen,  A.  P.  Bradley,  Silas 
Woodbury.  — 23. 

So  the  first  charge  was  declared  to  be  not  sustained. 

On  the  second  charge  the  vote  stood  the  same  as  on  the 
first  charge. 

As  the  facts  included  in  the  fourth  charge  were  admitted 
by  Dr.  Beccher,  no  vote  was  taken  upon  it. 

On  the  third,  fifth  and  sixth  charges,  the  vote  stood  as 
follows : 

Sustained. — Messrs.  Ilayden,  Monfort,  Gaines,  Gasley,  Aton,  Kemper. 
—  G. 

AU  Sustained.— Uci^SYS.  Morison,  Graves,  Biggs,  Bullard,  Vail, 
Rankin,  Pomroy,  Brainerd,  G.  Beechcr,  II.  Hageman,  S.  Hageman, 
Bradley,  Porter,  Archard,  Burnet,  Blair,  Tunis,  Lyon,  Carey,  Low, 
Mitchell,  Owen,  Woodbury,  Burt,  Skillinger,  Brown,  Andrew,  Harvey, 
Cumback.  ~  29. 


412  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

On  motion  of  Prof.  Biggs,  the  following  minute  was  re- 
corded as  the  decision  of  Presbytery  in  the  case : 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Presbytery,  the  charges  of  J.  L. 
Wilson,  D.D.,  against  Lyman  Beecher,  D.D.,  are  not  sustained,  for  the 
following  reasons  : 

I.  As  to  the  charge  of  depraved  nature,  it  appears  in  evidence  that  Dr. 
Beecher  holds  and  teaches  that  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  the 
divinely-appointed  connection  of  all  his  posterity  with  him,  man  is  born 
with  such  a  constitutional  bias  to  evil  that  his  first  moral  act,  and  all  sub- 
sequent moral  acts,  until  regenerated,  are  invariably  sinful ;  which  bias  to 
evil  is  properly  denominated  a  depraved  nature  or  original  sin,  as  in  the 
standards  of  our  Church. 

n.  As  to  the  second  charge,  relating  to  total  depravity  and  the  ivork  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  Dr.  Beecher  holds  and  teaches  that  this  depravity  is  so 
entire,  and  in  such  a  sense  insuperable,  that  no  man  is  or  ever  will  be 
regenerated  without  the  special  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  accompanying 
the  word,  as  expressed  in  the  standards  of  our  Church.  —  Larger  Catechism, 
Question  155,  and  Scripture  proofs. 

On  the  subject  of  ability,  Dr.  Beecher  holds  and  teaches  that  fallen  man 
has  all  the  constitutional  powers  or  faculties  to  constitute  moral  agency 
and  perfect  obligation  to  obey  God,  and  propriety  of  rewards  and  punish- 
ments ;  that  the  will  is  not  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  determined 
to  good  or  evil,  according  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  ix.  sec.  1,  with 
Scripture  proofs. 

At  the  same  time  Dr.  Beecher  holds  and  teaches  that  man  by  the  fall  is 
morally  disabled,  being  so  entirely  and  obstinately  averse  from  that  which 
is  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  so  that  he  is  not  able  to  convert  himself,  or  pre- 
pare himself  thereunto. 

The  extracts  from  Dr.  Beecher's  sermons  brought  to  sustain  the  above 
charges,  when  taken  in  their  proper  connection,  and  with  the  limitations 
furnished  by  the  context,  do  not  teach  doctrines  inconsistent  ^vith  the  Bible 
and  standards  of  our  Church. 

ni.  As  to  the  charges  of  Perfectionism,  slander  and  hypocrisy,  they  are 
altogether  constructive  and  inferential,  and  wholly  unsustained  by  the 
evidence. 

Presbytery  then   resolved   that   they  do  not   decide  the 


TRIAL   BEFORE    PRESBYTERY.  413 

amount  of  censure  due  to  Dr.  Wilson,  but  refer  the  subject  to 
the  Synod  for  their  final  adjudication. 

Dr.  Wilson  gave  notice  that  he  should  appeal  to  Synod 
from  this  decision. 

Messrs.  Gaines,  Skillinger,  Kemper,  Cumback,  Aton. 
Andrew,  Harvey,  Burt,  Brown,  Hayden,  Monfort  and 
Gazley,  gave  notice  of  their  dissent  and  protest  against  the 
decision. 

Messrs.  Stowe,  Rankin  and  Brainerd,  were  appointed  a 
committee  to  defend  the  above  decision  before  the  Synod. 

The  roll  was  then  called,  the  minutes  read,  and  Presbytery 
adjourned,  after  singing  and  prayer. 


From  this  decision  of  the  Presbytery  an  appeal  was  taken 
to  the  Synod.  The  record  of  the  decision  of  Synod  at  Day- 
ton, on  appeal,  I  have  not.  The  meeting  was  unusually  full, 
—  I  suppose  at  least  one  hundred  members  were  present, — 
and  the  decision  ^'  Not  Sustained"  was  unanimous,  with  the 
exception  of  some  ten  or  twelve  votes. 

From  this  decision  of  the  Synod  an  appeal  was  made  by 
Dr.  Wilson  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  in  its  session  at  Pittsburg ;  and  after  some  days  of 
that  session  had  passed.  Dr.  Wilson  rose  in  that  Assembly, 
and  said,  "I  came  prepared  to  prosecute  the  appeal  which  I 
have  brought  to  this  body,  but  the  friends  whom  I  have 
been  accustomed  to  consult,  and  whose  opinion  I  ought  tc 
respect,  have  advised  and  requested  me  to  withdraw  the 
appeal,  saying  that  it  could  not  be  sustained."  Therefore 
he  requested  permission  to  withdraw  it.  Accordingly  per- 
mission was  granted, —  it  is  believed  unanimously. 

This  was  done  after  my  Views  of  Theology  had  been  pub- 
lished and  extensively  read. 

VOL.  in.  35^ 


EEMARKS 

ON   AN    ARTICLE     IN     THE     PRINCETON     REVIEW,    ON     DR. 
BEECHER's    VIEWS    OF    THEOLOGY. 

The  review  of  my  Views  of  Theology  in  the  Biblical 
Repertory  is  adapted  to  produce  injurious  effects  far  beyond 
its  logical  ability.  It  is  invested  with  the  general  reputation 
and  influence  of  a  work  which  is  the  leading  organ  of  the  0. 
S.  Presbyterian  Church.  Moreover,  it  has  been  deemed 
worthy  of  repubhcation.  for  purposes  of  general  circulation, 
among  all  classes  of  readers.  Yet,  logically  viewed,  it  virtu- 
ally concedes  that  there  was  very  little  ground  for  an  assault 
upon  me.  The  two  main  points  which  it  proposes  to  discuss 
are  my  views  on  Original  Sin  and  on  Natural  AbiHty.  On 
the  first  of  these,  it  is  obliged  to  concede,  and  does  fully  con- 
cede, that  my  views  are  correct.  On  the  second,  there  is,  in 
fact,  only  the  usual  difference  between  us  that  exists  between 
the  New  England  divines  and  those  of  .Princeton.  And 
therefore,  in  view  of  facts,  I  infer  that  to  oppose  me  fairly 
and  logically  on  this  one  point  did  not  seem  to  be  enough  to 
gain  the  end  in  view.  It  seemed  to  be  deemed  necessary 
to  destroy  by  other  means  the  effect  of  what  could  not  be 
logically  refuted.  The  way  to  effect  this,  which  was,  in  fact, 
adopted,  was  to  intermix  with  the  review  a  series  of  personal 
assaults  on  my  moral  integrity,  my  capacities  as  a  metaphy- 


REMARKS   ON   THE   PRINCETON    REVIEW.  415 

sician,  and  my  trustworthiness  as  an  expositor  of  Scripture 
and  a  narrator  of  historical  facts.  This  series  of  personal 
assaults  is,  indeed,  the  most  striking  thing  in  the  review,  and 
is  well  adapted  to  produce  in  all  who  read  it  a  feehng  of  hos- 
tility and  of  personal  contempt  towards  me.  I  have  no  ohjec- 
tion  to  a  proper  exposure  and  refutation  of  any  errors  of 
reasoning,  exposition,  or  historical  statement;  but  the  con- 
tinuous and  deliberate  effort  to  destroy  my  reputation  and 
influence  by  a  flippant  and  contemptuous  exhibition  of  merely 
incidental  errors,  which  pervades  this  review,  is  a  violation  of 
the  rules  of  honorable  controversy  which  admits  of  no  just 
excuse. 

If  the  reviewer  and  the  Biblical  Repertory  were  them- 
selves free  from  all  similar  errors,  though  it  would  not  justify 
such  a  course,  yet  it  would  render  it  less  obviously  inconsist- 
ent. But,  in  fixct.  there  is  not  a  point  on  which  they  have 
undertaken  to  express  their  astonishment  at  my  errors,  on 
which  it  is  not  true,  either  that  their  charges  of  error  arc 
totally  unfounded,  or  else  that  they  are  liable  to  have  retorted 
upon  them  the  charge  of  similar  or  even  greater  errors. 

The  point  on  which  the  reviewer  insists  at  the  greatest 
lenjith  is  a  charge  of  self-contradiction  on  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin.  On  this  subject,  this  was  the  only  possible  mode 
of  assault ;  for  the  correctness  of  my  views,  as  set  forth  in  my 
plea  before  the  Synod,  he  could  not  and  did  not  deny. 
Nothing,  then,  remained  but  to  insinuate,  as  he  did,  that  I 
insincerely  changed  my  professed  views,  after  the  trial 
began,  in  order  to  escape  condemnation,  intending  to  revert  to 
them  when  the  danger  was  past,  and  to  assert  that,  at  all 
events,  I  have  flatly  contradicted  my  former  views.  For 
proof  of  this  charge,  he  relies  on  passages  of  my  sermon  on 
Native  Depravity,  and  of  my  lectures  on  Scepticism,  and  of 


416  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

my  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Christian  Examiner^  in  which  I 
deny  the  possibihtj  of  a  depraved  nature,  in  the  strict  sense, 
anterior  to  the  exercise  of  reason,  conscience  and  choice,  and 
also  deny  the  transmission  of  such  a  nature  by  descent.  I 
also  declare  that  men  are  not,  in  the  common  sense  of  the 
term,  guilty  of  Adam's  sin  ;  and  that  all  punishable  depravity 
is  voluntary  and  personal. 

These  passages  he  contrasts  with  others,  in  which,  on  my 
trial,  I  declare  that  I  regard  original  sin  as  a  depraved 
nature,  existing  before  choice,  and,  of  course,  as  involuntary, 
and  as  transmitted  by  generation  from  Adam ;  and  that  all 
men,  including  even  infants,  are  guilty  of  Adam's  sin,  and 
that  penal  evils  are  inflicted  on  them  on  account  of  it.  In 
view  of  the  alleged  contradictions  thus  presented,  the  reviewer 
indulges  himself  in  some  very  indecent  merriment,  with  refer- 
ence to  a  pretended  visit  of  mine  to  New  Haven,  for  the  sake 
of  assuring  myself  of  my  own  personal  identity,  by  the  aid  of 
Dr.  Taylor.  He  also  accumulates  assertions  of  "  contradic- 
tion palpable  and  broad,"  and  "  discrepancies  which  no 
sophistry  can  bridge  over."  He,  no  doubt,  intended  it  to  be 
a  demohtion  of  me,  absolute  and  irretrievable ;  for  he  assailed 
at  once  both  my  moral  honesty  and  my  intellectual  capacity. 
Considering,  too,  the  prejudices  of  those  to  whom  the  review 
was  addressed,  nothing  could  be  better  adapted  to  do  its  work. 
Judged  by  the  standard  of  partisan  morals,  which  has  been  too 
often  followed  in  the  fierce  campaigns  of  this  theological 
warfare,  namely,  that  the  end  sanctifies  the  means,  such  a 
coarse  of  conduct  may  be  defensible ;  but  on  no  ground  of 
truth  or  honor  does  it  admit  of  defence. 

The  real  facts  of  the  case  are  too  plain  and  obvious  to 
admit  of  a  question.  The  alleged  contradiction  is  a  mere 
change  in  the  use  of  terms,  of  which  I  gave  full  and  oft- 


REMARKS   ON   THE    PRINCETON    REVIEW.  417 

repeated  notice.  Understanding  by  a  depraved  nature  a 
nature  sinful  and  punishable,  in  the  strict  sense,  anterior  to 
voluntary  action,  I  have  always  denied  the  existence  and 
the  possibility  of  such  a  nature.  Understanding  by  a 
depraved  nature  a  deteriorated  constitution,  not  deserving 
punishment  itself,  because  involuntary,  but  nevertheless  uni- 
formly leading  to  sin,  I  have  always  admitted  and  taught 
the  existence  of  a  depraved  nature,  and  its  descent  by  ordi- 
nary generation,  and  on  my  trial  I  so  stated.  Understand- 
ing by  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  a  just  liability  to  punish- 
ment for  jt,  in  the  strict  sense,  as  if  his  moral  character  and 
deserts  had  been  transferred  to  us  by  imputation,  I  have 
ever  denied  it.  Understanding  by  it  a  social  liability  to 
certain  evils  that  came  on  Adam,  and  through  him  on  all  his 
posterity,  and  which  arc  technically^  but  not  in  the  common 
use  of  terms,  called  penal  evils,  or  pimish'}nent,  I  did,  on 
my  trial,  admit  that  all  men  are  guilty  of  Adam's  sin. 

Is  it  fair  or  honorable,  upon  such  grounds,  to  charge  con- 
tradictions on  me,  and  to  insinuate  that  I  professed  what  1 
did  not  believe,  in  order  to  escape  condemnation  ? 

On  this  point  the  Biblical  Repei^tory  shall  act  as  judge. 
Providentially,,  it  so  happened  that  in  their  controversy  with 
the  CJiristian  Spectator,  on  the  subject  of  Imputation,  in 
the  years  1830-1.  the  same  charge  of  self-contradiction  was 
made  against  them,  on  the  same  point.  They  had  endorsed 
Turretin's  views,  and  thus  laid  themselves  open  to  the  charge, 
as  follows  :  "We  said,  the  ill  desert  of  one  man  cannot  be 
transferred  to  another.  Turretin  says,  '  The  ill  desert  of 
Adam  is  transferred  to  his  posterity.'  Admitted,  freely. 
Is  not  this  a  direct  contradiction  7  Not  at  all.  Turretin 
says,  on  one  page,  '  Imputation  of  sin  does  not  constitute  one 
a   sinner;'"  on  the  very  next,   'The  imputation  of  Adam's 


418  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

sin  does  constituter  all  men  sinners.'  Is  there  any  contradic- 
tion here  ?  So  the  ' Protestant'  (Prof.  Stuart)  would  say ;  but 
there  is  none.  Let  language  be  interpreted,  not  by  the  tink- 
ling of  the  loords^  but  by  the  fair  and  universal  rules  of  con- 
struction. Imputation  does  render  a  man  a  sinner  in  one 
sense,  and  not  in  another, — judicially,  not  morally.  So  justi- 
fication renders  a  man  just  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  but  not 
inherently.  How  often  may  the  same  verbal  proposition  be, 
with  equal  propriety,  affirmed  or  denied  !  How  obvious  is"  it 
that  the  same  man  may,  at  the  same  time,  be  pronounced  both 
just  and  unjust,  sub  diversa  oyjaei  \  This  is  an  evil,  an 
ambiguity  in  the  sense  of  terms,  which  pervades  all  language, 
and  which  subjects  every  writer  to  the  charge  of  contradict- 
ing himself  and  everybody  else  any  one  may  take  a  fancy  to 
place  in  opposition  to  him.  The  word  guilt-  is  as  ambiguous 
as  the  word  sinner.  It  is  sometimes  used  in  a  moral,  at 
others  in  a  legal  sense ;  and  so  is  the  word  ill  desert.  "We 
used  it  in  the  former,  Turretin  in  the  latter." 

So,  then,  at  least,  in  the  years  1830-1,  the  Princeton 
gentlemen  knew  what  were  the  true  principles  of  judgment 
in  any  case  of  alleged  contradictions.  Then  they  knew  that 
words  were  ambiguous,  and  that  sinner^  guilty  and  ill  desert^ 
and  such  like  words,  could  be  used  in  two  senses ;  and  that 
verbal  contradictions  were  not,  of  course,  real  ones.  All  this 
they  well  knew  when  their  own  reputation  called  for  a  knowl- 
edge of  it.  How,  then,  did  it  happen  that,  in  1837,  when 
these  same  princij)les  would  have  defended  my  reputation  and 
moral  character,  that  they  were  so  entirely  forgotten  ?  Why 
did  they,  at  one  time,  insist  that  their  own  language  should 
be  "interpreted  by  the  fair  and  universal  laws  of  construc- 
tion," and  then,  when  my  interests  were  at  stake,  insist  on 
interpreting    my  language  by   the   mere   "  tinkling  of  the 


REMARKS   ON   THE    TRINCETON   REVIEW.  419 

>Yorcls  "  7  Why  did  tlicy,  at  one  time,  claim  for  tliemselves 
the  full  benefit  of  the  ambiguity  of  terms,  and  then  utterly 
deny  to  me  any  benefit  from  the  same  source  ? 

There  is  the  less  excuse  for  their  course  in  this  matter,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that,  in  order  to  remove  all  grounds  of  mis- 
understanding, I  expressly  stated  in  my  plea  that  I  merely 
changed  my  use  of  terms,  but  not  my  opinions.  What  I 
once  denied  I  told  them  that  I  still  denied  ;  but,  taking  certain 
terms  in  a  different  sense,  I  was  perfectly  Avilling  to  express 
my  old  opinions  in  a  new  dress.  The  facts  in  the  case  arc 
notorious,  and  undeniable. 

I  do  not  pretend  to  deny  that  I  once  assumed  that  interpre- 
tation of  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  of  the  creeds  of  the 
Reformers,  on  imputation^  ability,  &c.,  to  be  true,  which  was 
maintained  by  the  Triangular  or  old  school  divines.  So 
interpreted,  I  do  not  pretend  to  deny  that  I  rejected  the  idea 
of  the  strict  and  proper  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  or  of  the 
guilt  of  it,  to  his  posterity.  I  denied  no  less  decidedly  the 
reality  of  a  nature  preceding  action  which  was  in  the  strict 
and  proper  sense  sinful  and  punishable,  and  also  the  descent 
of  such  a  nature  from  Adam  to  his  posterity.  I  declared  that 
there  is  no  depravity  which  is  not  wholly  voluntary ;  and  no 
depravity  or  guilt,  but  that  which  arises  from  the  transgress- 
ion of  the  law  under  such  circumstances  as  constitute  account- 
ability, and  desert  of  punishment.  This  I  concede  that  I 
said  in  the  letter,  before  mentioned,  to  the  editor  of  tho 
Clu'istian  Exaininer,  and  also  in  other  places.  I  did  not 
then  enter  into  an  examination  of  the  soundness  of  that 
interpretation,  but  assuming,  as  other  New  England  divines 
had  done,  the  correctness  of  the  old  school  exposition,  I  rejected 
it.  But,  after  this,  in  the  years  1830-1,  we  were  taught  by 
the  Princeton  oracles  that  this  was  a  false  interpretation  of 


420  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

the  Presbyterian  standards  and  of  the  creeds  of  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  and  that  they  do  not  teach  that  the  substance  or  essence 
of  man  is  sinful,  or  that  such  a  sinful  substance  or  essence 
descends  from  Adam  to  his  posterity,  or  that  they  are,  in  the 
common  and  proper  sense,  guilty  of  his  sin ;  and  that  guilt 
means  simply  social  liability  to  punitive  evil,  which  evil  also 
is  punitive  merely  in  a  technical  sense,  and  not  as  being  truly 
and  properly  a  just  punishment  of  sin.  By  a  depraved  nature, 
they  also  teach  us,  is  meant  a  nature  devoid  of  original 
righteousness,  and  of  divine  influences  to  incline  it  to  good  ; 
and,  therefore,  by  reason  of  its  inherent  natural  propensities, 
tending  to  evil.  Taking  original  sin  to  denote  such  a  nature, 
I  did  teach  that  original  sin  is  involuntary,  and  that  it 
descends  from  Adam  to  his  posterity  by  ordinary  generation, 
and  is  properly  called  native  depravity,  or  an  evil  nature. 
Taking  guilt  in  the  sense  just  specified,  I  did  profess  to 
believe  that  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  his  pos- 
terity, even  to  infants  before  personal  accountability ;  and  that 
the  covenant  was  made,  not  only  with  Adam,  but  with  his 
posterity ;  and  that  they  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in 
this  sense, —  that  their  character  and  liabihty  to  ultimate  ruin 
were  decided  by  his  deed. 

Of  these  changes  in  interpretation,  and  in  the  use  of 
phraseology,  I  gave  repeated  and  formal  notice.  Nay,  so 
frequently  did  I  advert  to  these  facts,  that  it  was  hardly  con- 
sistent with  good  taste  in  writing ;  but  I  thought  it  desirable 
and  necessary  to  cut  off  all  pretexts  for  a  misunderstanding  of 
my  language.  But,  what  can  limit  and  bind  the  determina- 
tion of  a  thorough  partisan  7  After  all  my  care,  the  reviewer, 
as  if  I  had  said  nothing  of  the  kind,  parades  my  earlier  and 
my  later  statements  on  these  points,  and,  regarding  merely 
"the  tinkhng  of  the  words,"  charges  on  me  "contradiction 


REMARKS    ON   THE   PRINCETON   REVIEW.  421 

palpable  and  broad."  lie  professes  his  inability  to  account 
for  this  state  of  facts.  lie  thinks  that  I  must  be  acute 
enough  to  see  the  contradiction,  and  hopes  that  I  am  not 
too  proud  to  own  that  I  did  renounce  and  contradict  during 
my  trial  my  former  views.  lie  hopes,  too,  that  I  was  not 
taking  refuge  in  an  esoteric  sense  until  the  days  of  my  trial 
were  over,  intending  tlien  to  revert  to  my  former  views.  But, 
after  suggesting  this  uncandid  and  unchristian  supposition, 
he  leaves  his  readers  to  choose  for  themselves  which  of  the 
alternatives  they  please.  Such,  then,  is  the  force  of  sect- 
arian bigotry,  and  of  a  fixed  purpose  to  find  occasion  against 
me,  that  it  has  led  to  the.  total  disregard,  in  my  case,  of  the 
most  manifest  and  equitable  rules  of  interpretation,  the 
defence  of  which  the  Princeton  gentlemen  are  always  ready 
to  claim  in  their  own  behalf. 

The  reviewer  also  tries  to  prove  that  I  have  given  two 
contradictory  accounts  of  the  object  of  my  sermon  on  Native. 
Depravity.  But  what  are  these  accounts  7  I  said  that  I 
meant  in  it  to  refute  the  Pelagian  notions  of  native  excellence 
in  man  before  regeneration.  This,  moreover,  I  said  was  to 
be  effected  ^^  by  explaining  and  proving  the  doctrine  of 
total  depravity.''^  A  part  of  this  explanation  and  proof  con- 
sisted in  showing  that  depravity  could  not  be  resolved  into  an 
involuntary  sinful  nature  before  action,  nor  into  divine  effi- 
ciency. All  this  was  essential  to  a  proper  statement  and  proof 
of  depravity,  on  which  I  relied  as  the  means  of  gaining  my 
proposed  ends ;  and  I  constructed  my  sermon  so  as  to  effect 
it,  and  so  stated  on  my  trial.  Hereupon,  the  reviewer,  ever 
intent  on  finding  occasion  against  me,  says  that  this  second 
account  of  the  object  of  my  sermon  is  inconsistent  with  the 
first.  Is  it,  indeed  .'  If  I  aim  in  the  sermon  to  refute  Pela- 
gian notions,  and  if  I  rely  on  a  proper  statement  of  the  doc- 

VOL.   III.  oO 


422  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

trine  of  total  depravity  as  the  means,  is  it  not  proper  at  one 
time  to  state  that  the  sermon  was  made  to  attain  the  first- 
mentioned  end,  and  at  another,  that  it  was  made  in  order  to 
secure  the  appropriate  means  of  gaining  this  end?  What 
must  be  the  prejudice  of  the  mind  that  tries  to  manufacture  a 
contradiction  out  of  this  ! 

In  my  sermon  on  Native  Depravity,  I  use  the  words 
'•depraved  nature  "  to  denote  a  fixed  character,  voluntarily 
formed  by  the  sinner.  The  reviewer  declares  that  this  is  an 
abuse  of  language.  '-If  a  'depraved  nature'  means  actual 
transgression,  then  black  may  mean  white,  and  square  may 
mean  round,  and  root  branch,  and  language  may  be  thrown 
aside  as  less  explicit  than  dumb  signs." 

The  reviewer  professes,  moreover,  on  this  ground,  to  be 
unable  to  understand  what  I  mean,  in  my  exposition  of  my 
sermon,  by  "a  depraved  nature,  in  reference  to  actual 
depravity,"  and  insinuates  that  my  interpretation  of  my  own 
language  is  a  mere  evasion  of  its  obvious  sense.  To  this  I 
reply  that  it  is  not  improper  nor  unusual  to  call  a  permanent 
and  controlling  choice,  or  a  habit  of  choice,  from  which  results 
a  permanent  moral  character,  by  the  term  nature.  When 
Peter  says  that  by  great  and  j^recious  promises  believers 
are  made  partakers  of  the  divine  nature,  the  reference  must 
be  to  that  fixed  habit  of  holy  choice  and  emotion  which  is  of 
the  same  nature  with  the  holiness  of  God,  and  is  the  result 
of  the  influence  of  the  promises  of  the  Gospel.  The  nature 
of  the  cause  decides  the  nature  of  the  effect.  Motives  affect 
and  change  choice  and  conduct,  and  not  the  constitutional 
powers  which  precede  conduct.  Nor  is  this  application  of 
the  term  nature  at  all  unusual.  Turretin,  to  illustrate  the 
binding  force  of  the  divine  laws,  even  in  cases  of  most  decided 
moral  inability,  says,  "  The  intemperate  man,  who  cannot 


REMARKS   ON   THE   PRINCETON   REVIEW.  423 

refrain  from  intoxication,  his  accustomed  course  of  drinking 
Jiavino;  become  his  nature^  is,  nevertheless,  bound  by  the 
laws  of  sobriety  and  temperance.'"'  Locus  10,  quest.  4,  sec. 
23.  So,  also,  Marius  is  represented  by  Sallust  as  saying, 
"I  have  spent  my  life  in  the  discharge  of  duty,  and  by  the 
force  of  custom  well-doing  has  become  imy  nature^''  (bene- 
facere  jam  ex  consuetudine  in  naturam  vertit),  Jugurtha,  § 
85.  Moreover,  this  use  of  the  term  nature  is  recognized  by 
the  best  lexicographers.  Frcund,  in  his  -Latin  Lexicon,  as 
translated  by  Andrews,  gives  ''  character  "  as  one  definition 
of  nature^  and  refers  for  illustration  to  this  passage  from 
Sallust,  and  also  to  the  phrase  of  Quintilian,  '•'■  facere  sibl 
natnrain  alicujus  rei," — that  is,  to  make  a  voluntary  nature 
in  respect  to  anything  good  or  evil.  The  same  definition  in 
substance  is  also  found  in  Leverett's  Latin  Lexicon,  based  on 
the  great  work  of  Facciolati  and  Forcellini. 

Am  I  not,  then,  justified  by  such  authorities  in  my  use  of 
the  word  nature?  If  every  sinner,  at  the  beginning  of  moral 
agency,  begins  to  act  under  the  influence  of  a.  sinful  con- 
trolling choice,  if  this  becomes  continually  more  fixed  and 
habitual,  and  controls  and  establishes  the  other  habits  of  life, 
is  not  this  a  voluntary  depraved  nature,  according  to  the  best 
usage  of  language  ? 

Such  a  nature  is  sinful  in  the  strictest  and  most  perfect 
sense.  Nor  can  any  nature  be  holy  or  depraved,  in  this 
sense,  except  a  voluntary  nature.  There  must  be,  as  I  have 
said,  understanding,  conscience  and  choice,  to  render  such  a 
nature  possible. 

Nor  is  there  in  such  statements  concerning  a  voluntary 
depraved  nature  any  contradiction  to  other  statements,  in 
which  I  afiirm  that  there  is  in  all  men  a  depraved  or  smful 
nature  anterior  to  choice,  which  is  the  reason  why  all  men 


424  VIEWS   OP  THEOLOGY. 

Tiniformlj  choose  wrong.  In  cases  of  this  kind,  such  words 
as  depraved^  sinful,  &c.,  are  not  used  in  the  strict  sense,  but 
in  the  more  popular  and  loose  sense.  A  sinful  nature  in  this 
sense  is  an  original  constitution  which  leads  to  sin.  It  is 
called  sinful  with  reference  to  its  uniform  results,  and  not 
because  it  is  in  itself  worthy  of  punishment.  To  understand 
all  this,  nothing  is  necessary  to  the- Princeton  gentlemen,  but 
to  give  me  the  benefit  of  the  rules  of  interpretation  by  which 
they  insist  that  their  own  language  shall  be  interpreted. 

Of  course,  I  do  not  say  that  a  depraved  nature,  in  this 
second  sense,  is  impossible,  without  reason,  conscience  and 
choice;  and,  therefore,  I  do  not  deny,  in  my  sermon  on 
Native  Depravity,  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  I  elsewhere 
state  and  explain  it. 

The  reviewer  not  only  tries  thus  to  produce  contempt  for 
my  character  as  a  metaphysician  by  accumulating  baseless 
charges  of  self-contradiction  and  absurdity,  but  he  also 
appeals  to  theological  prejudice  to  overwhelm  me.  Because 
I  teach  that  all  sin  is  voluntary,  he  represents  me  as  ''lisping 
the  very  shibboleth  of  the  New  Haven  school;"  and  again 
he  says,  ''  This  is  the  very  language  of  the  New  Haven 
school."  Did  not  the  reviewer  know  that  this  was  the 
language  of  the  Hopkinsian  school,  long  before  New  Haven 
divinity  had  been  heard  of?  If  so^  then  why  not  state  the 
truth  ? 

The  only  possible  ground  of  charging  error  upon  me  is  the 
statement  made  by  me  that  the  Reformers  held  to  physical 
depravity. —  that  is.  that  the  very  substance  or  essence  of  the 
soul  was  depraved,  and  that  sin  was  a  property  of  every  man's 
nature,  and  was  propagated  as  really  as  flesh  and  blood.  I 
now  admit  that  some  do  disavow  this.  But  it  is  yet  a  contro- 
versy whether  their  language  does  not  fakly  teach  it.     At  all 


REMARKS    ON   THE   PRINCETON   REVIEW.  425 

events,  "when  I  wrote  my  letter  to  the  Christian  Examiner^  I 
thought  it  did,  and  therefore  rejected  their  views  so  understood. 
But  subsequently  I  adopted  the  interpretation  of  their  lan- 
guage given  by  the  Princeton  divines.  If  their  interpreta- 
tion is  correct,  then  I  never  rejected  the  views  of  the 
Reformers  on  original  sin,  as  the  reviewer  charges  on  me,  but 
merely  an  erroneous  interpretation  of  their  views. 

The  reviewer  also  represents  me  as  denying  original  sin  in 
my  letter  to  the  Christian  Examiner^  because  I  say  "that 
there  is  a  connection  of  some  kind  between  the  sin  of  Adam 
and  the  universal,  voluntary  and  entire  depravity  of  his  pos- 
terity ;  so  that  it  is  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin  that  all 
mankind  do  sin  voluntarily,  as  early  as  they  are  capable  of 
accountability  and  moral  action."  In  addition  to  this,  I  also 
deny  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  the  transmission  of  a 
sinful  nature,  in  the  strict  sense.  In  view  of  these  facts,  the 
reviewer  says  that  I  leave  nothing  but  a  connection  of  some 
kind ;  and  that  "it  is  mere  quibbling,  or  something  worse,  to 
retain  the  phrase  original  sin,  when  everything  that  could  be 
meant  by  it  is  rejected."  Is  it  so,  indeed?  Is  arlepraved 
nature,  in  the  sense  of  a  nature  not  strictly  sinful,  but 
always  leading  to  sin,  nothing?  Is  a  social  liability  to 
inherit  such  a  nature,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  nothing  1 
Is  such  a  connection  with  Adam's  sin  nothing  ?  If  I  reject 
the  descent  of  a  depraved  substance,  in  the  strict  sense,  and 
the  strict  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  I  do  no  more  than  the 
Princeton  gentlemen  themselves.  And  is  it  mere  quibbling, 
or  something  worse,  for  them  to  retain  the  phrase  original 
si?i  ? 

It  appears,  then,  that,  after  all  that  the  reviewer  has  said 
of  "  my  pitiable  plight,"  and  hopeless  conflict  with  the  obvious 
meaning  of  my  words,  and  my  wandering  mazes  of  confusion 

VOL.  fTT.  36* 


426  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

and  nonsense,"  the  simple  truth  is,  that,  hj  his  want  of 
common  candor  and  fairness  in  the  interpretation  of  mj 
words,  he  has  left  himself  in  the  pitiable  plight  in  which  I 
have  presented  him.  In  the  judgment  of  all  candid  men, 
language  so  disrespectful,  so  gross,  so  offensive  and  so  ungen- 
tlemanlj,  as  he  has  seen  fit  to  use  towards  me  in  the  course 
of  his  review,  cannot  but,  in  the  end,  react  upon  himself 

I  pass  now  to  his  strictures  on  me  with  reference  to  the 
subject  of  Natural  Ability.  This  part  of  the  review  occupies 
thirty-five  pages  ;  and  yet  the  real  essence  of  the  argument, 
as  against  my  position,  is  contained  in  two  pages  (pp.  192, 
193,  Princeton  Theol.  Essays,  vol,  II.).  As  opposed  to 
Fatalism,  I  teach,  that,  in  any  given  case  of  choice,  man  still 
retains  the  power  of  contrary  choice.  This  the  reviewer 
denies,  on  the  ground  that  man  always  must  choose  according 
to  his  predominant  inclination  at  any  time,  and  has  neither 
the  power  to  choose  against  it,  nor  to  change  it  by  a  direct  act 
of  will.  That  in  any  case  a  man  could  have  chosen  differ- 
ently from  what  he  did,  if  he  had  inclined  so  to  do.  is  all 
the  pow(^'  of  contrary  choice  which  he  admits. 

The  result  of  this,  of  course,  is,  that,  on  his  principles,  no 
man,  at  any  time,  could  have  chosen  differently  from  what  he 
did.  It  is  not  merely  true  in  the  case  of  an  inclination  to  sin 
in  depraved  man,  but  also  in  the  case  of  an  inclination  to  per- 
form holy  acts  in  angels,  and,  indeed,  in  all  cases  whatever  of 
voluntary  action  of  any  kind,  and  in  all  worlds.  As  he  states 
it.  it  is  a  universal  law  of  action.  But,  so  stated,  facts  prove 
it  to  be  untrue.  Was  there  a  sinful  inclination  in  holy 
angels  before  they  fell?  If  not,  if  all  their  incHnations 
were  holy,  then  it  was  impossible  for  them  ever  to  make  a 
sinful  choice.  But  they  did.  Facts,  then,  are  at  war  with 
the  reviewer's  theory. 


REMARKS    ON   THE    PRINCETON    REVIEW.  427 

But  let  US  examine  it  more  closely.  What  docs  he  mean 
by  inclination  ^  In  another  case  he  uses  desire  as  synony- 
mous with  it,  and  in  another  case  ajj^cctions.  If,  then,  for 
example,  a  sinner  is  under  the  controlling  influence  of  strong 
sensual  desires  or  affections,  is  it  true  that  he  cannot  cliooso 
contrary  to  them?  Has  God  given  to  the  mind  no  power  of 
choosing,  according  to  reason  and  conscience,  against  tho 
strongest  sensual  desires  and  affections '?  • 

Is  it  true  that  desires,  affections,  appetites  and  the  like,  are 
of  the  same  order  as  a  sense  of  duty,  a  consciousness  of 
what  is  honorable  and  right?  Have  not  the  latter  a  just 
authority  which  the  first  have  not  ?  Is  not  man  conscious  of 
it?  Is  it  not  reasonable  that  man  should  be  made  with 
power  to  respond  to  this  consciousness,  by  choosing  against  his 
desires,  affections  and  appetites,  however  strong,  in  view  of 
justice,  honor  and  right? 

If  not,  how  can  the  duty  of  self-denial  ever  be  inculcated  ? 
How  can  man  be  called  on  to  crucify  the  flesh,  cut  off  a  right 
hand,  pluck  out  a  right  eye,  take  up  the  cross  and  follow 
Christ  ?  What  power  could  a  preacher  have,  in  contending 
against  the  sway  of  the  sinful  appetites,  desires  and  affections 
of  his  hearers,  who  should  tell  them  that  the  doctrine  that 
they  have  power  to  choose,  according  to  conscience,  against 
such  influences,  however  strong,  is  false  and  heretical  ? 

If  it  should  be  said,  in  reply,  that,  in  every  case  of  right 
choice,  a  man  still  chooses  according  to  predominant  moral 
desires,  affections  and  propensities,  I  reply  that  a  sense  of 
moral  obligation  is  neither  a  desire,  an  affection  or  a  propen- 
sity. It  is  a  peculiar  state  of  mind,  of  entirely  another  order, 
and  is  designed  to  act  as  a  counterpoise  of  these.  Therefore, 
in  this  region,  at  least,  we  find  a  field  for  the  power  of  con- 
trary choice.     Man  can  choose  either  according  to  his  sinful 


428  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

inclinations,  desires  and  affections,  or  against  them,  and 
according  to  his  conscience.  Moreover,  whichever  way  he 
chooses,  he  had  power  to  choose  the  other  way.  This,  more- 
over, is  the  most  important  field  of  choice,  and  that  with  which 
theologians  are  specially  interested  ;  for  it  is  their  great  work 
to  call  on  man  to  follow  reason,  honor,  right  and  conscience, 
in  opposition  to  sinful  inclinations,  desires  and  affections. 

But  th«  reviewer  asserts  that  Edwards  and  the  New 
England  divines  have  taught  no  such  power  of  contrary 
choice  as  I  maintain,  and  labors  largely  to  prove  it  by  quo- 
tations from  Edwards,  pp.  182 — 184.  I  freely  concede  that 
Edwards  did  repudiate  such  a  power  of  contrary  choice  as 
was  held  by  the  Arminian  writers,  whom  he  was  opposing. 
This  power,  as  he  informs  us,  assumed  indifference  in  the 
will  to  motives,  and  contingency  of  volitions  in  the  sense  of 
chance,  and  that  the  will  determined  each  choice  by  a  preced- 
ing act  of  choice.  Any  power  of  contrary  choice,  resting  on 
such  a  basis.  I  repudiate  as  sincerely  as  Edwards.  But  did 
Edwards  reject  the  thing  that  I  hold  under  this  name  7  Did 
he  hold  that  in  every  act  of  choice  whatever  there  was  no 
power  of  any  kind  to  choose  otherwise  ?  Was  this  his  idea 
of  moral  inability  as  compared  with  natural  inability  ?  Did 
he  merely  hold  that  men  have  power  to  act  according  to  their 
choice^  but  no  power  whatever  to  choose  otherwise  than  they 
do? 

In  reply  to  this,  I  say,  that  if  language  can  contradict  such 
a  theory,  Edwards  has  formally  and  definitely  contradicted  it. 
At  the  close  of  sec.  4,  Part  1,  he  says,  not  of  external  acts^ 
but  of  acts  of  the  will,  and  that,  too,  in  cases  of  moral  ina- 
bility, "  In  these  things,  to  ascribe  a  non-performance  to  the 
loant  of  iiower  or  ability^  is  not  just ;  because  the  thing 
wanting  is  not  a  being  able^  but  a  being  willing.     There  are 


REMARKS   ON   THE    PRINCETON   REVIEW.  429 

faculties  of  mind,  a  capacity  of  nature,  and  everything  else 
sufjicloit^  but  a  disposition ;  nothing  is  wanting  but  a 
will." 

It  is,  then,  just  to  say,  according  to  Edwards,  that  there  is 
ability  to  perform  the  required  acts  of  will,  even  in  cases 
where  sinners  disobey,  and  are,  in  a  moral  sense,  unable. 
The  thing  wanting  is  not  ability  ;  there  are  faculties  of  mind, 
and  a  capacity  of  nature,  and  everything  else  sujjicient ; 
nothing  is  wanting  but  willingness.  Now,  whether  Edwards 
calls  this  the  power  of  contrary  choice  or  not,  it  is  all  that  I 
mean  by  it,  and  therefore,  in  the  thing,  if  not  in  the  name,  I 
agree  with  Edwards. 

Once  more,  the  idea  of  Fatalism,  as  I  reject  it,  was  dis- 
tinctly presented  to  Edwards,  and  carefully  considered,  for  he 
had  been  charged  with  agreeing  with  the  Fatalism  of  Lord 
Kaimcs.  But,  after  careful  thought,  he  denies  the  charge. 
In  his  reply  to  Lord  Kaimcs,  he  quotes  him  as  teaching  as 
follows  :  ' '  All  things  that  fall  out  in  the  natural  and  moral 
world  are  alike  necessary.  This  incUnatioii  and  choice  is 
unavoidable,  caused  by  the  prevailing  motive.  In  this  lies 
the  necessity  of  our  action,  that  in  such  circumstances  it  was 
impossible  we  could  act  otherwise."  Here  now  Fatalism  {just 
as  I  have  described  it)  is  clearly  set  forth  by  Lord  Kaimes. 
Its  essence  is  a  fixed  necessity  of  choosing  as  we  do,  like 
that  necessity  which  exists  between  natural  causes  and  effects. 
It  could  not  be  more  clearly  presented.  What,  then,  did 
Edwards  say  ?  Did  he  recognize  and  sanction  it  as  his  doc- 
trine ?  Nay,  he  rejected  it,  just  as  explicitly  and  indignantly 
as  I  do.  In  opposition  to  it,  he  says,  "I  have  largely 
declared  that  the  connection  between  antecedent  things  and 
consequent  ones,  which  takes  place  icith  regard  to  the  acts 
of  men's  icills,  which  is  called  moral  necessity,  is  called  by 


430  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

the  name  of  necessity  improperly  ;  and  that  all  such  terms 
as  must^  cannot  J  impossible^  unable^  irresistible^  unavoid- 
able^ invincible^  &c.,  when  applied  here,  are  not  applied  in 
their  proper  signification,  *  *  and  that  such  a  necessity  as 
attends  the  acts  of  inen''s  wills  is  more  properly  called 
certainty  than  necessity." 

And  do  not  I  teach  certainty  of  moral  action  as  truly  as 
Edwards;  and  does  he  not  reject  what  I  have  defined  as 
Fatalism  as  truly  as  I?  And  is  there  any  possible  middle- 
ground,  between  the  rejection  of  such  Fatalism  as  Edwards 
rejects,  and  the  admission  of  the  power  of  contrary  choice  as 
I  hold  it  7  I  concede  that  it  is  not  the  Arminian  idea  of 
power  to  the  contrary,  but  it  is  all  that  I  have  ever  held  or 
taught,  and  in  it  I  agree  with  Edwards. 

Moreover,  Edwards  was  understood  by  his  intimate  friends 
and  disciples  as  I  have  understood  him.  Who  better  under- 
stood him  than  Hopkins,  his  favorite  pupil,  and  the  editor  of 
his  works?  Whilst,  then,  Hopkins,  as  the  expositor  of 
Edwards,  clearly  asserted  the  depravity  of  the  sinner,  and  his 
moral  inability  to  make  him  a  new  heart,  did  he  understand 
this  as  a  denial  of  the  sinner's  j^ower  to  choose  difierently 
from  what  he  did,  even  to  the  extent  of  changing  his  own 
heart  ?  Listen  to  him  in  reply  to  the  sinner  who  pleads 
his  absolute  inability  to  do  his  duty  as  an  excuse.  "  The  un- 
regenerate  sinner,  who  has  reformed  all  ways  of  external  sin, 
and  prays  to  God  for  a  new  heart,  which  he  thinks  he  sin- 
cerely desires,  but  that  it  is  wholly  out  of  his  power  to 
change  his  own  hearty — such  a  one,  I  say,  makes  himself  in 
a  great  measure  easy  in  an  unregenerate  state,  while  he 
thinks  he  does  all  he  can.  Such  a  sinner  is  not  under 
genuine,  thorough  convictions,  and  never  will  nor  possibly 


REMARKS    UN    TlIU    PRINCETON    REVIEW.  431 

can  be,  wliilc  he  believes  tin's  representation  just."  Hop- 
kins' Works,  III.  299. 

So,  then,  according  to  Hopkins,  it  is  not  just  to  say  that  a 
sinner  cannot  change  his  own  heart,  or  to  say  that  he  has  done 
all  he  can  until  he  has  changed  his  own  heart.  Nay,  so 
false  are  these  assertions,  that  no  man  who  believes  them 
either  is,  or  possibly  can  be,  under  genuine  and  thorough 
conviction  of  sin.  The  truth,  then,  is,  according  to  Hopkins, 
that  a  sinner  can  change  his  own  heart,  and  has  never  done 
all  he  can  till  he  has  done  it.  And  is  not  this  the  po"\ver  of 
contrary  choice  ?  At  all  events,  it  is  all  that  I  mean  by  it,  or 
ever  did.  Nothing  that  I  have  ever  said  is  stronger  or  more 
unguarded  than  this  statement  of  Hopkins.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary for  me  to  multiply  such  quotations.  I  will  only  say, 
that  I  see  no  rational  course,  after  rejecting  that  Fatalism 
which  Lord  Kaimes  has  set  forth,  and  which  Edwards  and 
all  his  foUow^ers  have  always  rejected,  except  io  take  the 
ground  of  the  power  of  contrary  choice, —  not,  indeed,  as  the 
Arminians  held  it,  whom  EdAvards  opposed,  but*  as  I  have 
developed  it,  and  set  it  forth. 

But  the  reviewer  once  more  attempts  to  set  me  in  opposi- 
tion, not  only  to  Edwards,  but  to  all  Calvinistic  ivriters^  on 
account  of  my  use  of  the  terms  liberty^  freedom^  &c.,  in  con- 
nection with  the  will.  This  is  worthy  of  particular  notice,  on 
account  of  his  arrogant  assumption  of  extended  and  accurate 
knowledge  on  the  subject,  and  his  efforts,  by  detecting  inci- 
dental errors  in  me  in  questions  of  history  and  interpreta- 
tion, to  destroy  my  inlluence  as  a  writer.  I  know  of  no  case, 
however,  in  which  a  Avriter  of  such  magnificent  pretences  has 
involved  himself  in  such  a  maze  of  gross  and  inexcusable 
errors. 

He  takes  the  ground,  then,  ''  that  wc  derive  our  notion  of 


432  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

freedom  from  the  dependency  of  our  actions  upon  our  voli- 
tions. If,  when  we  will  a  particular  act,  the  act  follows,  we 
are  free." — Prin.  Theol.  Essays,  vol.  ii.  p.  187.  Accord- 
ingly, he  defines  a  free  agent  as  ''  '•  one  who  is  not  hindered 
by  any  extrinsic  impediment  from  acting  according  to  his  own 
will." — p.  187.  He  then  asks,  "How  can  we  raise  the 
question  whether  the  will  itself  be  free'?"  and  again  he 
asserts  •'•  the  question  whether  the  will  itself  is  free  is  non- 
sense."—  p.  184.  When  he  says  that  this  use  of  terms  is 
sanctioned  by  Edwards,  he  is  clearly  correct.  But  when  he 
proceeds  to  say  that  in  it  all  Calvinistic  writers  agree  (p.  184, 
and  187),  I  am  amazed  at  either  his  ignorance  or  his 
audacity.  But  so  it  is.  Accordingly  he  proceeds  to  censure 
me  for  saying  that  naan  is  free  to  choose,  with  power  of  con- 
trary choice,  and  for  inquiring  whether  choice  is  free,  and 
whether  man  in  choosing  is  coerced  or  free,  in  order  to 
decide  the  question  of  responsibility.  In  short,  he  again  and 
again  denies  the  propriety  of  applying  the  terms  free,  liberty, 
freedom,  <fcc.,  to  the  will  or  to  its  acts,  or  to  man  in  reference 
to  the  power  of  willing,  and  confines  them  solely  to  man  in  J 
view  of  the  connection  between  volitions  and  their  consequent 
actions  ;  and  most  magisterially  asserts  that  all  Calvinistic 
writers  do  the  same. 

And  yet  this  same  reviewer  was  at  this  very  time  a  pro- 
fessor in  the  Theological  Seminary  of  Princeton,  and  a  sworn 
defender  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Let  it  now  be  well  considered  that  in  the  ninth 
chapter  of  that  same  Confession  we  are  taught  as  follows : 
^'  God  hath  endued  the  will  of  man  with  that  2s"ATURAL 
LIBERTY  that  it  is  neither  forced  nor  by  any  absolute  neces- 
sity of  nature  determined  to  good  or  evil."  Astonishing ! 
The  will  endued  by  God  with  liberty  !     Were  the  West- 


REMARKS   ON   THE    PRINCETON   REVIEW.  433 

minster  Assembly  of  Divines,  then,  no  Calvinists?  Have 
they  plunged  headlong  into  nonsense  ?  Or  has  the  reviewer, 
through  a  fixed  purpose  to  censure  me,  plunged  himself  into 
a  most  humiliating  blunder,  for  a  man  of  so  much  pretension 
and  occupying  such  a  station  in  the  Church  ? 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  Princeton  reviewers,  in  whose  name 
he  was  now  speaking,  are,  by  the  same  sentence,  no  less 
unceremoniously  turned  out  of  the  lists  of  Calvinistic  writers. 
For,  in  an  article  on  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  and  in  an 
express  statement  of  the  point  in  question,  they  say  {Essays^ 
vol.  I.  p.  251),  ''Neither  is  the  question  whether  the  will 
has  liberty  of  choice  ;  that  is,  in  every  act  of  choice  acts 
freely^  according  to  the  pleasure  of  the  agent,  and  not  by 
constraint  or  compulsion.  This  is  agreed  on  all  hands." 
So,  then,  it  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  the  will  has  liberty 
of  choice ;  and  if  our  learned  reviewer  is  to  be  believed,  the 
whole  Church,  including  all  the  Princeton  reviewers,  except 
himself,  are  no  Calvinists,  and  are  as  deeply  plunged  in 
nonsense,  in  this  particular,  as  I  myself 

Nor  will  even  old  Calvin  himself,  we  fear,  escape  any 
better  than  we ;  for  (B  I.  c.  15,  §  8)  he  ascribes  to  Adam 
"a  free  choice  of  good  and  evil;  "  and,  as  opposed  to  com- 
pulsion and  physical  necessity,  he  asserts  the  existence  of 
free  icill  in  all  ages.  —  B.  ii.  c.  2,  §  7,  and  elsewhere. 
Nor  is  this  all.  We  have  the  authority  of  Calvin,  as  well  as 
of  history,  for  the  assertion,  that  all  preceding  writers, — that  is, 
the  scholastic  divines  and  the  fathers, — not  excepting  Augus- 
tine, applied  the  terms,  /ree,  freedom^  &c.,  to  the  will  and  its 
acts,  even  as  I  have  done.  And  it  lies  upon  the  very  face  of 
Turretine  that  he  so  applies  the  terms.  He  says  that  it  is  a 
calumny  when  the  Papists  say  '•  that  they  (the  Reformed) 
reject  both  the  name  and  the  reality  oi  free  will ;  "  for,  says 

VOL.  III.  37 


434  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

he,  "  we  shall  soon  prove  that  we  establish /ree  will  much  more 
correctly  than  our  adversaries."  Again  he  says,  "  In  order 
that  choice  may  be  free^  it  ought-to  be  exempt  from  com- 
pulsion and  physical  necessity."  This  essential  liberty  of 
choice^  he  says,  "is  in  all  men,  always,  in  every  condition." 
—  See  Turretine,  L.  10,  q.  1 — 4. 

How  happens  it,  then,  that  J;he  reviewer  has,  with  all  his 
pretensions,  fallen  into  such  a  wilderness  of  blunders  ?  It 
would  seem  to  be  from  the  fact  that  he  was  misled  by  sup- 
posing that  Edwards,  Collins  and  Hobbs  (whom  it  seems  he 
had  just  read  for  the  occasion,  at  least  in  part),  were  fair 
representatives  of  the  whole  Calvinistic  world  in  their  use  of 
the  words  free,  freedom^  kc,  as  applied  to  moral  agents 
and  the  will.  Nothing  can  be  further  from  the  fact.  Not 
one  of  Edwards'  New  England  followers,  so  far  as  I  recollect, 
followed  him  in  his  definition  of  liberty.  Hopkins  said  that 
freedom  consisted  in  voluntary  action  itself,  and  not  in  the 
connection  between  volitions  and  the  acts  dependent  on  them. 
Edwards  the  younger  and  West  said  that  liberty  was  not 
voluntary  action  itself,  but  a  quality  of  it, —  that  is,  its  ex- 
emption from  compulsion  and  physical  necessity.  President 
Day,  even  in  a  professed  defence  of  Edwards,  regards  his 
definition  of  liberty  as  unsatisfactory,  and  apparently  evasive. 

But  the  fact  is,  that  Edwards,  though  he  wrongly  defined 
libe?^ty,  yet,  as  I  have  shown,  held  to  the  facts  in  which 
liberty  of  will  consists  as  I  hold  it ;  that  is,  he  denied  fatal 
and  physical  necessity  of  choice,  and  held  to  a  power  to 
choose  right,  but  refused  to  apply  to  it  the  name  of  liberty. 
I  do  apply  to  it  the  name  liberty^  and  that  is  the  difference 
between  us.  It  is  a  difference  in  the  use  of  terms.  More- 
over, in  my  use  of  terms,  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Prince- 


REMARKS   ON    THE   PRINCETON    REVIEW.  435 

ton  Review  and  almost  the  whole  Calvinistic  world,  are  with 
me,  in  this  particular,  and  against  Edwards  and  the  reviewer. 

Moreover,  when  Edwards  engaged  in  the  work  of  preaching, 
forgetful  of  theories,  he  used  the  word  just  as  I  do.  For  ex- 
ample, in  his  sermon  on  indecision,  from  1  Kings,  18  :  21, 
''  How  long  halt  ye,"  &c.,  he  tljus  sets  forth  the  unreason- 
ableness of  indecision  :  ''  God  has  made  us  reasonable 
creatures,  and  capable  of  rationally  detennlnin^  for  our- 
selves.  *  *  God  hath  made  us  capable  of  making  a  wise 
choice  for  ourselves  as  to  the  life  we  shall  choose  to  lead.  *  * 
God  also  puts  into  our  hands  a  happy  opportunity  to  deter- 
'mine  for  onrselves.  What  better  opportunity  can  a  man 
desire  to  consult  his  own  interest  than  to  have  liberty  to 
:hoose  his  own  portion?"  Here,  then,  we  have  not  merely 
power  to  act  as  we  choose,  but  power  to  determine  and  liberty 
to  choose,  and  to  choose  aright,  on  the  great  question  of  eter- 
nal life. 

In  proof  of  this,  Edwards  appeals  to  the  same  texts  on 
which  I  have  relied ;  for  example,  Deut.  30  :  19, —  ''  I  call 
heaven  and  earth  to  record  this  day  against  you,  that  I  have 
set  before  you  life  and  death,  blessing  and  cursing ;  therefore 
choose  life,  that  thou  and  thy  seed  after  thee  may  live."  He 
also  refers  to  Ezek.  18  :  31,  32,  and  33  :  11. 

Indeed,  even  the  reviewer,  when  he  happens  to  have  a 
little  changed  his  point  of  vision,  reports  certain  facts  of  his 
own  mental  consciousness,  which  the  Princeton  reviewers 
declare  to  be  the  highest  possible  form  of  the  freedom  of  the 
will.  He  tells  us  that  even  he  is  "conscious  of  a  power 
wdiich  we  possess  to  will  as  we  please."  Notice;  not  a 
power  TO  ACT  as  7ve  2i'ill,  which  is  his  old  definition  of  free- 
dom, but  TO  WILL  as  we  please. 

This  means,  as  our  previous  exposition  of  the  reviewer's 


436  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

theory  shows,  that  man  has  power  to  will  according  to  his 
predominant  inclination,  or  appetite,  or  desire;  using  the 
words  "  as  we  please,"  not  to  denote  -'as  we  choose,"  in  the 
Edwardean  sense,  but  as  our  desires,  appetites  and  sense  of 
pleasure  are.  On  this  the  Princeton  reviewers  say,  in 
another  place,  "If,  then,  we  can  will  as  we  please,  we  have 
all  conceivable  liberty  and  power,  so  far  as  the  will  is  con- 
cerned." And  again,  '-  There  can  be  no  necessity  in  vohtion ; 
it  is  liberty  itself.'''  This  view  of  volition,  as  liberty  itself,  is 
exactly  the  ground  of  Hopkins.  We  do  not  endorse  the  doc- 
trine, but  merely  show  once  more  that  the  application  of  the 
terms  free^  freedom^  Irberty^  kc,  to  the  will  and  its  acts, 
which  the  reviewer  condemns  in  me,  is  abundantly  authorized 
by  his  fellow-reviewers,  as  well  as  the  New  England  divines ; 
and  that  it  is  properly  applied  to  his  own  reported  conscious- 
ness, and  so  applied  presents  it  as  in  their  view  the  highest 
form  of  THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  WILL.  We,  howevcr,  can 
conceive  of  a  form  of  freedom  of  the  will  still  higher  than  this ; 
that  is,  the  power  to  choose,  not  only  according  to  our  pleas- 
ure, but  also  according  to  truth,  right  and  duty,  even 
against  our  pleasure, —  that  is,  against  the  demands  of  any 
appetites,  passions  or  propensities,  however  strong. 

The  reviewer,  .however,  quotes  against  me  a  passage  from 
the  treatise  on  Original  Sin,  in  which  Edwards  repudiates  the 
idea  which  he  ascribed  to  Dr.  John  Taylor,  '  ■  that  there  is  a 
sufficient  power  and  ability  in  all  mankind  to  do  all  their 
duty,  and  wholly  to  avoid  sin.""  And  again,  that  there  is 
"in  their  own  natural  abihty  sufficient  means  to  avoid  sin, 
and  to  be  perfectly  free  from  it."  To  this  Edwards  says, 
"If  the  means  are  sufficient,  then  there  is  no  need  of  more, 
and  therefore  there  is  no  need  of  Christ's  dying  in  order  to 
it."     On  this  the  reviewer  asserts  that  my  opinions  and  those 


REMARKS   ON   THE   PRINCETON   REVIEW.  437 

of  J.  Taylor  arc  identical;  that  no  jugglery  upon  his  words 
can  separate  between  them  ;  that  Edwards  repudiates  such 
views  with  abhorrence,  and  yet,  that  the  sanction  of  his 
venerable  name  is  invoked  for  them. — p.  181,  182. 

To  this  I  reply,  no  jugglery  is  needed,  bat  merely  candor 
and  common  sense.  The  whole  question  turns  on  the  sense 
attached  by  Edwards  to  the  word  "  sufficient."  If  by  "suf- 
ficient provision"  and  "sufficient  means"  he  understood 
provision  and  means  which  do  in  fact  avail,  either  generally 
or  in  any  case  actually,  to  deliver  men  from  sin,  and  keep 
them  perfectly  holy,  so  that  in  practice  it  is  safe  to  rely  on 
them  as  ever  or  commonly  securing  these  results,  then  I 
repudiate  the  doctrine  with  as  much  abhorrence  as  Edwards. 
But  if  by  '-'sufficient  means  "  is  meant  that  natural  ability  to 
choose  right  which  averts  Eatalism  and  creates  obligation, 
then  I  do  not  repudiate  the  doctrine ;  and  if  any  one  will 
insist  that  Edw^ards  does  (as  the  reviewer  alleges),  he  merely 
involves  him  in  self-contradiction  ;  for  in  the  passage  already 
quoted  he  says,  "  The  thing  wanting  is  not  a  being  able^ 
but  a  being  willing.  There  are  faculties  of  mind,  and  a 
capacity  of  nature,  and  everything  else  sufficient,  but  a 
disposition.  Nothing  is  wanting  but  a  will."  On  these 
grounds  he  says,  and,  be  it  well  considered,  concerning  the 
acts  of  the  will,  "  To  ascribe  a  non-performance  to  the  want 
oi 2)020 er  or  ability  is  not  just." 

Once  more,  the  reviewer  censures  me  for  not  always 
attaching  the  epithet  "natural"  to  the  word  ability,  as  if 
by  the  omission  I  taught  a  kind  of  ability  contrary  to  the 
regular  New  England  doctrine.  For  example,  when  I  say, 
"  the  moment  the  ability  of  obedience  ceases,  the  commission 
of  sin  becomes  impossible,"  or  when  I  assert  "the  full  ability 
of  every  sinner  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  salvation ;  "  or, 

VOL.  III.  37 


438  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

again,  ''  that  men  are  free  agents,  possessed  of  such  faculties, 
and  placed  in  such  circumstances,  as  render  it  practicable  for 
them  to  do  whatever  God  requires ; "  he  declares  that  all  this 
is  an  improvement  on  the  regular  New  England  doctrine  of 
Natural  Ability,  —pp.  179—181. 

To  this  I  reply,  the  regular  New  England  doctrine  is  not 
Fatalism  concealed  under  the  phrase  "  natural  ability," 
meaning  thereby  merely  power  to  do  as  we  will,  whilst,  at  the 
same  time,  we  are  unaJ^le,  in  every  sense,  to  will  otherwise 
than  we  do.  This  is  the  very  Fatalism  of  Lord  Kaimes, 
which  Edwards  indignantly  repudiated  as  utterly  at  war  with 
his  doctrine.  In  opposition  to  this,  Hopkins,  too,  as  we  have 
seen,  emphatically  declared  that  a  sinner  can  change  his 
own  hearty  and  has  never  done  all  that  he  can,  until  he  has 
obeyed  the  command  so  to  do.  In  all  my  statements  above 
quoted,  I  mean  no  more  than  this.  Nor  is  it  needful,  after 
once  and  again  defining  my  use  of  terms,  on  all  occasions  to 
introduce  the  word  ''  natural"  to  qualify  the  abihty  asserted. 
Neither  Edwards  nor  Hopkins  always  does  thus,  as  may  be 
seen  by  the  passages  recently  quoted  from  them. 

In  addition  to  this,  if  any  shall  so  far  abuse  the  phrase 
''natural  ability"  as  to  make  it  a  deceitful  veil  of  Eatalism, 
using  it  as  implying  no  power  to  choose  right,  but  only  a 
power  to  act  right  if  we  first  choose  right,  whilst  we  are  in 
every  sense  unable  to  choose  right,  then  it  is  high  time  to 
expose  such  a  delusive  jugglery  on  words,  and  to  say  that 
by  the  ability  of  which  we  speak  we  mean  a  real  power  to 
choose  as  God  commands,  and  not  a  verbal  and  delusive 
shadow  of  ability,  which  is  at  heart  nothing  but  disguised 
Fatalism. 

The  mode  which  the  reviewer  adopts,  in  order  to  neutralize 
the  power  of  my  quotations  from  the  fathers  and  other  theo- 


REMARKS    ON   THE    PRINCETON    REVIEW.  439 

logical  writers,  deserves  notice  and  reprobation.  He  asserts 
that  when  I  quote  authorities  I  shift  the  question  to  this, — Has 
man  power  to  act  according  to  his  will  ?  and  accumulate 
(quotations  to  prove  this  point;  and  then  shift  back  again,  and 
represent  them  as  proving  that  man  has  power  freely  to 
choose^  instead  of  power  to  act  according  to  his  choice.  ''  By 
thus  interchanging  phrases  of  different  import,  and  shifting 
the  question  at  the  proper  turn,  he  is  enabled  to  array  on  his 
side  a  formidable  list  of  authorities,  from  the  days  of  the 
fathers  down  to  the  present  generation."  "The  inquiry 
raised  is,  whether  choice  is  free,  except  ivJtoi  some 
authority  is  to  be  introduced.^'' —  p.  186. 

Now,  to  this  I  reply,  that  either  the  reviewer  had  read  my 
authorities,  or  he  had  not.  If  he  had,  he  was  dishonest.  If 
he  had  not,  then  he  was  inexcusably  ignorant.  For  the  facts, 
as  they  lie  upon  the  very  face  of  my  quotations,  are  obviously 
and  irremediably  at  war  with  his  assertion.  Take  one  notori- 
ous case.  I  appeal,  as  just  stated,  to  the  Confession  of  Faith 
(chap.  IX.  §  1)  to  prove  that  the  will  of  man  is  endowed 
by  God  with  liberty  in  its  determinations,  and  that  it  is 
neither  forced,  nor  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  deter- 
mined, to  good  or  evil.  Is  this  a  shifting  of  the  question  7 
Does  this  merely  answer  the  question  whether  man  can  act 
as  he  wills,  and  not  whether  his  avill  is  free  7  And  is  the 
Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  no  authority 
to  a  professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton? 
Ave  the  Westminster  divines  no  authority  to  Presbyterians '? 

It  is,  indeed,  quite  a  remarkable  fact,  that,  although  the 
Confession  of  Faith  was  the  very  standard  of  trial,  and 
although  I  appealed  to  it  again  and  again,  and  claimed  that  it 
was  on  my  side,  and  declared  explicitly  that  its  statements  on 
the  liberty  of  the  will  contained  exactly  my  doctrine  of  natu- 


440  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

ral  ability,  yet  on  this  most  vital  point  of  all,  the  reviewer 
makes  no  effort  whatever  to  answer  me.  He  is  here  as  silent 
as  the  grave  concerning  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Whjr  is 
this  ?  Did  he  really  forget  that  this  was  the  very  standard 
of  judgment?  Did  he  forget  that  on  the  point  at  issue  it  was 
decisive  ?  Did  he  forget  that  I  had  appealed  to  it  again  and 
again?  Did  he  forget  that  in  express  terms  it  sustains 
both  my  language  and  my  views  ?  Did  he  forget  all  this, 
and  then,  in  pure  ignorance,  charge  me  with  shifting  the  ques- 
tion, so  that  the  testimony  of  the  Westminster  divines  does 
not  meet  the  point, —  Is  the  will  free  ?  If  he  did  all  this  in 
pure  ignorance,  then  the  public  will  judge  how  fit  he  was,  in 
point  of  knowledge,  to  write  a  proper  review  of  such  discus- 
sions. If  he  did  not  do  it  in  ignorance,  then  the  public  will 
judge  what  shall  be  thought  of  the  moral  integrity  of  a 
man  who  could  knowingly  be  guilty  of  such  an  act.  More- 
over, they  will  judge  how  far  it  is  consistent  with  common 
honesty  for  those  on  whom  the  responsibility  now  rests  for 
the  statements  of  the  Princeton  Review,  if  there  are  any 
such,  to  perpetuate  this  and  other  like  charges,  uncorrected, 
to  all  coming  ages. 

A  similar  course  of  remark  might  be  repeated,  with  refer- 
ence to  authority  after  authority.  They  assert  the  freedom 
of  the  will,  or  the  power  of  choosing  otherwise  than  we  do,  as 
opposed  to  Fatalism,  with  wonderful  explicitness.  For  ex- 
ample, Justin  Martyr  says,  "  If  mankind  had  not  the  power, 
hj  free  willj  to  avoid  what  is  disgraceful  and  to  choose  what 
is  good,  they  would  not  be  responsible  for  their  actions."  Is 
this  merely  a  power  to  act  as  we  choose  ?  Is  it  not  a  power 
freely  to  choose  right  or  wrong  ? 

Irenaeus  places  the  ground  of  responsibility  in  ''free  will," 


REMARKS  ON  THE  PRINCETON  REVIEW.      441 

and  represents  God  as  approving  men  for  ''  choosing  and 
persevering  in  that  which  is  good." 

Clement  of  Alexandria  says  that  God  has  given  us  ''free 
and  sovereign  power,  not  having  allowed  what  we  choose  or 
what  we  avoid  to  be  subject  to  a  slavish  necessity." 

Tcrtullian  says,  "  I  find  that  man  was  formed  by  God  with 
free  lo'dl^  and  with  power  over  himself,  observing  in  him 
no  image  or  likeness  to  God  more  than  in  this  respect." 
"  Transgression  Avould  not  have  been  threatened  with  death, 
if  the  contempt  of  the  law  were  not  placed  to  the  account  of 
man's /ree?^///." 

Origen  avows  and  defends  free  will,  and  says,  ''  Every  one 
has  the  power  of  choosing  good  and  choosing  evil." 

Cyprian  asserts, — "Man,  being  left  to  his  own  liberty  and 
endowed  with  free  loill^  seeks  for  himself  death  or  salva- 
tion." 

Eusebius  says,  "  Every  rational  soul  has  naturally  a  good 
free  will,  formed  for  the  choice  of  what  is  good.  *  *  When 
a  person,  who  had  the  power  of  choosing  what  is  good,  did 
not  choose  it,  but  voluntarily  turned  away  from  what  is  best, 
pursuing  Avhat  is  worst,  what  room  for  escape  could  be  left 
him?" 

Jerome  says,  ' '  That  we  possess  free  will,  and  can  turn  it 
either  to  a  good  or  bad  purpose,  according  to  our  determina- 
tion, is  owing  to  his  grace,  who  made  us  after  his  image  and 
likeness." 

Augustine. — -'Freewill  is  given  to  the  soul.  *  *  * 
Every  one  has  it  in  his  will,  cither  to  choose  those  things  that 
are  good,  and  be  a  good  tree,  or  to  choose  those  things  that 
are  bad,  and  be  a  bad  tree." 

Luther. — '•  The  will  does  what  it  does,  whether  good  or 
bad,  at  perfect  liberty." 


442  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

Dr.  Woods  says,  ''  I  grant  that  man  has  a  power  of  choos- 
ing between  different  courses,  and  of  yielding  to  either  of  two 
opposite  motives." 

Such  is  a  small  specimen  of  the  authorities  which  I  intro- 
duced. Do  they  not  meet  the  question,  Is  choice  free  as 
opposed  to  Fatalism  7  Yet,  either  after  reading  them,  or  else 
without  reading  them,  the  reviewer  has  dared  to  say,  "  The 
inquiry  raised  is,  whether  choice  is  free,  except  when  some 

AUTHORITY   IS   TO    BE   INTRODUCED  !  " 

It  is,  indeed,  true  that  one  of  my  authorities  (Howe)  is 
liable  to  exception,  as  teaching  merely  that  man  can  act  as 
he  7vilL  But  of  the  great  mass  of  them  it  is  not  true.  They 
meet  the  true  question,  whether,  as  opposed  to  Fatalism,  it  is 
true  that  man  has  free  will, —  that  is,  has  the  natural  power 
of  choosing  otherwise  than  he  does, —  and  they  decide  that  he 
has. 

By  a  similar  false  assertion,  the  reviewer  tries  to  destroy 
the  influence  of  my  argument  from  the  Bible.  —  p.  195. 
There  is,  however,  no  need  of  further  reply.  He  takes  good 
care,  as  before,  to  rest  in  mere  assertion.  He  gives  his 
readers  no  opportunity  to  judge  for  themselves.  If  his  pur- 
pose was,  not  to  aid  in  a  candid  inquiry  what  is  the  truth,  but 
merely  to  destroy  the  influence  of  my  arguments,  for  party 
purposes,  he  took  perhaps  the  most  effectual  course  to  gain 
such  an  end. 

But  now,  if  any  one  should  say,  with  the  reviewer  (p.  186), 
"Liberty  must  be  the  attribute  of  an  agent,  and  not  of  a 
faculty."  But  is  the  will  an  independent  agent,  or  a 
faculty  ?  And  is  it  proper,  then,  to  say  that  a  faculty,  or 
its  action,  is  free,  or  has  freedom  ?  Is  it  not  the  man 
who  is  free  ?  I  answer.  Yes,  it  is  the  man  who  is  free.  And 
when  I,  and  other  Calvinists,  say  the  will  is  free,  we  mean 


REMARKS   ON  THE   PRINCETON   REVIEW.  443 

that  the  man  who  -wills  is  free  in  ^Yilling,  and,  in  the  -words 
of  the  Confession,  "is  not  compelled,  or  determined  by  any 
absolute  necessity  of  nature,  to  good  or  evil."  So,  also,  when 
I  say  choice  is  free,  I  mean  that  the  man  -who  chooses  is  free 
in  his  choice.  But  -what  then  7  The  question  still  is.  Is 
man  free  in  wllUug^  or  only  in  acting  as  he  loills  7  Presi- 
dent Day,  in  reply  to  this  allegation,  that  the  "svill  is  not  an 
agent,  and  that  liberty  properly  belongs  to  an  agent,  and  not 
to  a  faculty,  very  correctly  says,  "  Still  it  may  be  proper  to 
inquire  -whether  the  man  is  free  in  his  iciUlng,  as  well  as  in 
his  external  actions.  Is  he  possessed  of  freedom  in  his  voli- 
tions, as  w^ell  as  in  his  bodily  movements?" — Exam,  of 
Edwards^  p.  81. 

But  though,  in  fact,  it  is  the  man  who  is  free,  it  is  not  unusual 
or  improper  to  express  the  idea  that  man  is  free  in  willing 
by  saying  that  the  will  is  free,  or  that  choice  is  free.  Noth- 
ing is  more  common,  even  in  the  highest  authorities,  than  to 
speak  of  faculties  as  if  they  were  agents.  Edwards  says, 
"  That  which  the  willj^refci's,  to  that,  all  things  considered, 
it  preponderates  and  indinesy  Yet  elsewhere  he  says, 
"  Actions  are  to  be  ascribed  to  agents,  and  not  properly  to  the 
powers  of  agents."  Yet  who,  in  the  first  case,  would  sup- 
pose that  Edwards  did  not  know  that  the  will  was  a  fliculty, 
and  not  an  agent,  although  he  ascribed  actions  to  it  ?  Who, 
too,  would  ever  misunderstand  him  ?  After  a  man  has  once 
declared  his  belief  in  the  revolution  of  the  earth  on  its  axis, 
must  he  never  again  say  that  the  sun  rises  and  sets,  for  fear 
of  some  hypercritical  charge  of  error  ?  So,  after  a  full  state- 
ment that  the  real  fact  is  that  it  is  the  man  who  is  free  in 
choosing,  must  we  never  again  say  the  will  is  free,  or  choice 
is  free,  lest  some  new-fledged  metaphysician  should  again 
pounce  upon  us   Calvinists,   not   excepting  the    Princeton 


444  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

divines,  with  charges  of  inconsistent  and  inaccurate  use  of 
language  'I 

I  make  these  general  remarks  as  an  answer  to  a  large  part 
of  all  the  reviewer's  charges  on  me  of  a  confused  and  inac- 
curate use  of  language.  Let  him  be  as  candid  towards  me  as 
he  would  be  towards  Edwards,  or  Locke,  or  the  Westminster 
divines,  or  the  Princeton  reviewers  themselves,  and  most  of 
his  charges  will  at  once  disappear.  For  example,  even  if  I 
do  sometimes  speak  of  "the  natural  inability  of  the  will,"  or 
"  the  natural  power  of  the  will,"  the  phrases  are  not,  as  the 
reviewer  alleges,  "destitute  of  meaning,"  or  ''  absurd." — p. 
174.  They  denote,  as  before,  the  natural  inability  or  power 
of  the  man  in  whom  the  will  is.  So,  too,  the  expression, 
"the  will  is  under  no  such  necessity  as  destroys  its  own 
power  of  choice"  (p.  174),  is  not  devoid  of  an  obvious  and 
proper  meaning.  Let  it  be  interpreted  on  the  same  princi- 
ples which  are  applied  to  the  language  of  Edwards  or  the 
Westminster  divines,  in  the  cases  already  referred  to,  and  it 
means  ' '  the  man  who  wills  is  under  no  such  necessity  as 
destroys  his  own  power  of  choice."  If  this,  as  the  reviewer 
tells  us,  is  a  "  vague  and  slipshod  use  of  terms"  (p.  175), 
then  let  the  Princeton  reviewers  look  well  to  their  own  lan- 
guage and  example ;  for  they  say,  "All  will  admit  that  the 
natm^al  faculty  of  will  exerts  the  choice.''^ — Vol.  i.  p.  255. 
And  so  repeatedly,  in  other  instances,  they  use  language  just 
as  I  do. 

In  one  instance  the  reviewer  takes  advantage  of  a  captious 
interpretation  of  terms,  or  of  the  condensation  of  my  style  in 
certain  passages,  to  make  out  the  charge  of  a  vagueness  in 
the  use  of  the  terms  cause  and  effect^  which  he  says  is 
"  remarkable,  even  in  Dr.  Beecher." — p.  172.  I  will  state 
the  passages,  and,  where  necessary,  restore  the  unexpressed 


REMARKS   ON   THE    PRINCETON   REVIEW.  445 

links  of  thought,  as  my  sufficient  defence  against  his 
charge. 

' '  The  supposition  of  accountabihty  for  choice,  coerced  by 
natural  necessity,  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  things,  as  God 
has  constituted  them.  The  relation  of  cause  and  effect  per- 
vades the  universe.  The  natural  world  is  full  of  it.  It  is 
the  basis  of  all  science,  and  all  intellectual  operation,  with 
respect  to  mind.  Can  the  intellect  be  annihilated,  and  think- 
ing go  on  ?  No  more  can  the  power  of  choice  be  annihilated, 
and  free  agency  remain." 

Here  the  reviewer  suppresses  what  follows  to  complete  the 
statement,  and  charges  me  with  asserting  that  free  agency, 
taken  as  a  capacity,  is  the  effect  of  the  power  of  choice.  But 
I  do  not  say  this  ;  I  merely  say  that  it  cannot  exist  without 
the  power  of  choice,  and  then  proceed  to  state  what  other 
powers  are  necessary  to  constitute  free  agency ;  and  then 
assert  that  if  these  do  not  exist,  it  is  not  just  to  demand 
voluntary  obedience  to  the  law,  since  this  would  be  demand- 
ing an  effect  without  a  cause.  In  this  case  free  choice  is  the 
effect,  and  the  powers  that  constitute  free  agency  are  the 
cause.     Is  this  vague,  or  obscure  ? 

Again,  I  say,  ''  The  supposition  of  continued  responsibility, 
after  all  the  powers  of  causation  (that  is,  as  to  choice)  are  gone, 
is  contrary  to  the  common  sense  and  intuitive  perception  of  all 
mankind.  On  the  subject  of  moral  obhgation  (as  to  choice), 
all  men  can  see  and  do  see  that  there  can  be  no  effect  without 
a  cause  (and  therefore  no  obligation  to  choose  right  without  a 
power  so  to  choose).  That  nothing  cannot  produce  something  is 
an  intuitive  perception,  and  you  cannot  help  it.  This  is  the 
basis  of  that  illustrious  demonstration  by  which  you  prove  the 
being  of  a  God."  Here  he  charges  me  with  improperly 
asserting  that  responsibility,  or  moral  obhgation,  is  an  effect 

VOL.  in.  38 


446  VIEWS   OF  THEOLOGY. 

of  the  power  of  choice  ;  whereas  my  language,  when  the  obvi- 
ous links  of  thought  are  fairly  supplied,  only  means  that 
responsibility  cannot  exist  without  the  power  of  choice. 

Again  I  say,  "Material  causes,  while  upheld  by  Heaven, 
are  adequate  to  their  proper  effects ;  and  the  mind  of  man, 
though  fallen,  is,  while  upheld,  a  cause  (of  free  choice)  suffi- 
cient, in  respect  to  the  possibility  of  obedience,  to  create  infi- 
nite obligation  (to  obey)."  Here  he  represents  me  as 
improperly  asserting  that  the  mind  of  man  is  a  cause  of  the 
possibility  of  obedience  and  of  infinite  obligation  ;  whereas  the 
whole  train  of  thought  plainly  shows  that  I  regarded  the  mind 
of  man  as  a  sufficient  cause  of  choice^  and  on  that  ground 
giving  rise  to  infinite  obligation  to  obey,  as  appears  from 
restoring  the  obvious  and  proper  links  of  thought. 

Upon  this  array  of  particulars  he  then  founds  the  charge, 
which  I  have  proved  to  be  false,  that  I  teach  that  the  will  or 
mind  of  man  is,  in  the  proper  sense,  a  cause^  not  of  free 
choice,  but  of  free  agency,  viewed  as  a  capacity^  and  of 
responsibility,  and  of  the  possibility  of  obedience,  and  of 
infinite  obligation, —  things  unlike  in  nature,  and  which, 
properly  speaking,  are  not  effects  at  all. 

He  then,  with  affected  forbearance,  says,  '^  Respect  for  Dr. 
Beecher  restrains  us  from  employing  the  only  becoming  and 
adequate  mode  of  exposing  such  argumentation  as  this." 
Nevertheless  he  assures  us  that  it  must  leave  "  its  dispar- 
aging mark  on  me,"  as  a  reasoner  and  a  divine.  Nay,  he 
makes  it  an  occasion  of  an  ungentlemanlike  and  undignified 
sneer  at  me,  for  having  once  said  to  Dr.  Porter  that  my 
method  of  philosophizing  was  the  Baconian. 

I  would  not  enter  into  such  unwelcome  details,  if  it  were  not 
for, the  fact  that  the  main  effect  of  the  review  depends  upon 
an  accumulation  of  such   things.      "  No    one,"    says  the 


REMARKS   ON  THE   PRINCETON  REVIEW.  447 

reviewer,  ''-who  reads  the  extracts  "wc  have  given,  or  still  less 
if  he  reads  the  treatise  from  which  they  are  taken,  will 
wonder  that  Dr.  Bccchcr  should  have  felt  it  necessary  to  in- 
form Dr.  Porter,  and  through  him  the  public  at  large,  that 
his  method  of  philosophizing  was  the  Baconian.''  What  is 
this  but  an  effort  to  neutralize  my  whole  argument  in 
advance,  even  before  attempting  fairly  to  meet  my  reasoning, 
and  that  by  a  sneer  based  upon  a  captious  and  unfair  inter- 
pretation of  my  language?  Nor  are  such  things  without 
great  effect.  In  partisan  minds,  prepared  for  their  influence, 
they  immediately  beget  a  spirit  of  insolent  contempt,  and  a 
prejudice  before  argument,  upon  which  no  reasoning,  however 
fair,  can  exert  any  power.  To  produce  such  effects,  and  thus 
to  accomplish  partisan  ends,  I  know  of  nothing  better  adapted 
than  this  review,  taken  as  a  whole.  Therefore  it  cannot  be 
effectually  answered  until  I  have  shown  what  is  the  secret 
of  its  malignant  power,  at  least  by  a  few  examples. 

In  another  case,  merely  to  illustrate  the  absurdities  of  Fatal- 
ism, I  supposed  choice  to  be  produced  by  wheels  and  water- 
power,  but  did  not  say  that  I  regarded  it  as  possible.  In 
view  of  this,  he  contemptuously  says,  "  Dr.  Beecher  is  the 
only  writer  we  have  ever  met  with  who  seemed  to  suppose 
tliat  the  will  could  l)e  moved  by  water-power,  or  propelled  by 
steam,"  and  represents  me  as  gravely  attempting  to  prove 
'•  that  man  is  not  accountable  for  those  of  his  volitions  that 
are  worked  out  of  him  by  water-power;  ■'  just  as  if  I  had 
expressed  a  belief  that  there  were  or  could  be  any  such  voli- 
tions !  No  doubt  such  things  will  have,  on  many  minds,  the 
designed  effect.  But  is  this  the  way  to  represent  a  Christian 
brother,  in  candor  and  in  truth  ? 

In  a  very  few  instances,  his  verbal  criticisms  were  well 
founded.     In  such  cases,  I  have  availed  myself  of  his  strict- 


448  VIEWS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

ures,  however  unfriendly,  to  render  my  use  of  terms  more 
clear  and  precise.  But,  wherever  I  have  neglected  his  criti- 
cisms, I  regard  them  as  obviously  unjust,  even  if  I  make  no 
reply. 

In  one  case  he  exposes  an  error  of  interpretation  caused 
by  relying  solely  on  the  English  version  of  Jer.  7  :  10, — "  We 
are  delivered  to  do  these  abominations."  Here  I  erroneously 
took  the  word  "delivered"  in  the  sense  "given  up,"  or 
"abandoned."  If  the  reviewer  had,  for  the  sake  of  the 
truth  and  in  a  friendly  spirit,  pointed  out  this,  or  any  other 
error,  I  would  have  received  it  with  gratitude.  But  this  was 
not  his  end  or  spirit.  He  avowedly  exposed  it  to  "  show  how 
little  rehance  is  to  be  placed  on  Dr.  Beecher  as  an  interpreter 
of  Scripture."  Thus  he  draws  a  universal  inference  of  in- 
competency from  a  single  error ;  just  as  if  incidental  errors 
of  interpretation  were  not  so  common  that  few,  if  any,  leading 
divines  can  be  pointed  out  who  are  entirely  free  from  them. 
Certainly,  Edwards,  Turretin  and  Calvin,  were  very  far  from 
such  freedom.  I  refer  to  this  because  it  illustrates  the 
general  drift  of  the  review :  that  is,  in  every  possible  way  to 
destroy  my  character  and  influence  as  a  logician,  an  inter- 
preter and  a  divine. 

For  a  similar  purpose,  he  severely  scrutinizes  my  list  of 
Fatalists,  for  the  sake,  as  he  distinctly  avows,  "of  showing 
how  far  it  is  safe  to  trust  Dr.  Beecher's  accuracy  in  matters 
of  history."  He  has  detected,  I  concede,  one  or  two  errors. 
But  he  has  himself  been  guilty  of  more  than  he  has  detected 
in  me,  notwithstanding  all  his  insolence  and  sarcasm.  For 
example,  I  speak  of  the  Stoics  as  Fatalists.  He  at  once  turns 
to  Dugald  Stewart,  and  finds  in  him  a  reference  to  the  first 
sentence  of  the  Enchiridion  of  Epictetus  as  a  proof  that  they 
held  to  free  will.     Next,  either  by  his  own  blunder,  or  by 


REMARKS   ON   THE    PRINCETON    llKVIEW.  449 

that  of  the  printer,  this  is  learnedly  set  forth  as  the  first 
"  instance  "  in  the  Enchiridion  of  Epictetus,  but  it  is  not 
quoted,  and  was  probably  never  read,  or  even  seen,  by  the 
reviewer.  He  then  quotes  the  opinion  of  Stewart  himself, 
that  the  Stoics  carried  their  notions  of  the  liberty  of  the  will 
to  an  unphilosophical  extreme.^'  Now,  that  the  reviewer 
had  never  made  any  original  investigation  of  this  matter,  but 
had  merely,  in  his  hasty  search  for  something  to  use  against 
me,  relied  on  what  came  first  to  hand  in  Stewart,  is  plain 
from  this, —  that  the  more  recent  and  accurate  investigations  of 
Ritter  fully  justify  my  assertions,  and  the  common  opinion 
as  to  the  Fatalism  of  the  Stoics,  and  show  that  the  free  will 
which  they  asserted  was  merely  nominal.  He  proves,  by 
clear  authorities,  that,  according  to  them,  matter  was  originally 
in  God,  as  an  essential  part  of  him,  and  had  laws  of  its  nature 
above  his  will ;  and  that  he  developed  the  world  out  of  himself, 
according  to  certain  fixed  laws  of  fate,  and  that  by  the  same 
laws  all  will  be  again  destroyed  ;  ' '  for  all  is  ordered  by  the 
laws  of  necessity,  and  has  the  life  of  a  self-developing  animal." 
Viewing  God  and  the  universe  together,  "  the  whole  appeared 
to  them  merely  as  a  material  God,  who,  both  in  and  out  of 
himself,  is  subjected  to  the  force  of  necessity."  They  did, 
indeed,  he  allows,  try  to  escape  such  a  result  by  a  verbal 
denial  of  the  subjection  of  God  to  necessity  ;  but  he  clearly 
proves  that  the  very  ground-principles  of  their  system  im- 
plied his  subjection  to  real  necessity,  as  originating  not  only 
from  an  eternal  chain  of  causation,  but  also  from  the  nature 
of  the  very  essence  or  matter  of  God,  in  subordination  to  the 
necessary  laws  of  which,  all  of  his  developments  must  proceed. 

*  Still    further   to   embarrass   a  tliorough   inquirer,    the  reference   to 
Stewart's  works  is  to  the  wrong  page.     He  refers  to  vol.  vi.  p.  241.     It 
should  have  been  471,  or  else  vol.  v.  p.  504. 
VOL.  III.  38* 


450  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

So  also,  though  in  words  they  extolled  the  freedom  of  the 
will  of  man.  still  they  held  that  his  nature  and  propensities 
were  assigned  to  him  by  a  fate  above  any  power  of  his  own, 
or  of  God,  for  even  he  cannot  suspend  or  repeal  the  laws 
of  matter:  and,  though  they  denied  a  necessary  subjection  of 
the  will  to  the  power  of  external  objects,  they  none  the  less 
subjected  it  to  an  absolute  internal  necessity,  created  by  the 
fated  constitution  and  propensities  of  man.  —  See  Ritter, 
translated  by  Morrison,  vol.  ill.  pp.  515,  518,  526,  532— 
536,  554—556. 

Relying  still  on  the  aid  of  Stewart,  he  proceeds  to  prove, 
from  Lucretius,  that  the  Epicureans  held  to  a  will  set  free 
from  fate,  and  refers  to  Cicero  as  of  the  same  opinion.  If 
he  had  taken  the  pains  to  look  thoroughly  into  the  matter, 
and  to  read  Cicero,  to  whom  he  refers,  he  would  have  found 
that  the  free  will  which  the  Epicureans  professed  in  words 
Cicero  regarded  as  merely  a  ridiculous  pretence.  They  held 
that  the  soul,  as  well  as  all  things  else,  was  but  a  fortuitous 
concourse  of  atoms ;  and  that  free  will,  so  called,  was  but  a 
fortuitous  motion  of  these  atoms,  out  of  the  perpendicular 
line,  in  which  they  naturally  descend, —  a  motion  totally 
without  reason,  and  entirely  uncertain  in  time  or  place. 
Cicero,  moreover,  not  only  adverts  to  this  ridiculous  theory 
of  pretended  free  will,  but  also  says  concerning  it,  "  No  one 
seems  to  me  more  to  establish,  not  only  the  doctrine  of  fate, 
but  the  necessity  and  compulsory  power  of  all  things,  and  to 
have  destroyed  all  real  voluntary  agency,  than  he  who  con- 
fesses that  he  could  in  no  other  way  refute  the  doctrine  of 
fate  than  by  resorting  to  these  pretended  irregular  motions 
of  atoms."— O/c.  de  Fato,  20,  48. 

On  this  point,  also,  Stewart,  his  one  great  oracle,  says, 
"  Lucretius,  indeed,  speaks  of  this  liberty  as  an  exception  to 


REMARKS    ON   THE    miNCETON   REVIEW.  451 

universal.  Fatalism  ;  but  he,  nevertheless,  considers  it  as  a 
necessary  effect  of  some  cause,  to  which  he  gives  the  name 
of  cHnamen,  so  as  to  render  man  as  completely  a  piece  of 
passive  mechanism  as  he  was  supposed  to  be  by  Collins  and 
Ilobbes."  — Vol.  v.  p.  593.  To  this  Stewart  adds,  "The 
reason  which  he  gives  for  this  is,  that,  if  the  case  were 
otherwise,  there  iconld  be  an  effect  ivithout  a  cause.''^ 

If  the  reviewer's  practical  theory  is  a  good  one, —  that  it 
is  sufficient  to  destroy  the  influence  of  a  man's  reputation, 
and  of  his  whole  argument,  to  point  out  some  incidental 
errors, —  then,  for  augnt  I  see,  he  has,  in  the  blundering 
criticism  which  I  have  exposed,  thoroughly  neutralized  his 
own  authority  as  a  critic.  It  ought  here,  also,  to  be  re- 
marked, that  the  opinion  of  Hitter  concerning  the  Fatalism  of 
the  Stoics  is  by  no  means  peculiar  to  him.  Eschenberg,  in 
his  manual  of  classical  literature,  does  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  ''  the  doctrine  of  fate  was  one  of  their  (the  Stoics')  grand 
peculiarities.  They  considered  all  things  as  controlled  by  an 
eternal  necessity,  to  which  even  the  Deity  submitted ;  and 
this  was  supposed  to  be  the  origin  of  evil."  —  Fisk's 
Translation^  p.  228. 

In  the  History  of  Philosophy  adopted  by  the  University 
of  France,  and  translated  by  C.  S.  Henry,  D.D.,  it  is  stated, 
as  a  principle  of  the  Stoic  philosophy,  "that  everything  is 
subject  to  the  laws  of  fate ;  for  God,  or  the  primitive  intel- 
ligent fluid,  can  act  only  according  to  his  nature,  and  the 
nature  of  the  passive  principle  which  he  ensouls ;  and  souls 
emanated  from  the  universal  soul  are,  for  the  same  reason, 
subject  to  fital  laws  in  their  sphere  of  action." — Vol.1, 
p.  164.  The  historian  also  admits  that  the  system '  recog- 
nized ideas  of  justice  and  holiness,  and  also  of  duty  and 
obligation ;  but  regards  these  as  merely  a  contradiction  of 


452  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

the  undeniable  principles  of  the  system.  So  general  is  this 
view,  that  Webster,  also,  in  his  quarto  dictionary,  presents 
it.  and  refers  to  Enfield  as  teaching  that  the  Stoics  held  that 
all  things  are  governed  by  an  unavoidable  necessity.  Even, 
then,  if  I  had  erred  in  adopting  as  true  an  opinion  so  current, 
and  nearly  universal,  it  would  have  been  no  good  ground  for 
insult  and  reproach  ;  but,  since  I  was  correct,  and  my  critic 
at  fault,  it  is  easy  to  see  upon  whom  the  reproach,  if  any  is 
to  be  borne,  ought  to  fall.  I  disapprove,  however,  of  the 
whole  style  of  criticism  pursued  by  the  reviewer,  and  have 
no  disposition  to  imitate  his  evil  example. 

As  to  Bolingbroke,  whom  I  classed  with  the  Fatalists,  it  is 
true  that  in  some  passages  he  clearly  teaches  free  agency  in 
form ;  and  yet  he  no  less  clearly  teaches  the  materiahsm  of 
the  soul,  which  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  material  Fatal- 
ists, and  denies  a  special  providence,  and  individual  retribu- 
tion, in  this  or  the  future  state,  if  there  is  any,  which  he 
does  not  admit.  Tholuck,  in  his  *'  History  of  Theology  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,"  iniblished  in  the  Biblical  Repertory, 
with  approval,  says  of  him,  "He  seems,  on  the  whole,  to 
have  approached  very  near  to  materialistic  atheism,  deny- 
ing the  moral  attributes  of  God,  and  admitting  only  his 
wisdom  and  power."  When,  in  connection  with  this,  we 
consider  his  licentious  life,  and  his  notorious  habit  of  pro- 
fessing, for  effect,  what  he  did  not  really  believe,  his  asser- 
tions of  free  agency  are  no  proof  that  in  reality  he  held  that 
doctrine,  and  did  not  hold  to  the  legitimate  results  of  his 
materialistic  atheism.  Did  he  not  assert,  in  a  great  variety 
of  forms,  his  belief  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of 
Christianity,  as  set  forth  in  the  gospels  ?  And  yet,  is  any 
one  simple  enough  to  believe  that  he  was  not  an  enemy  and 


REMARKS    ON   THE   PRINCETON   REVIEW.  453 

a  disbeliever  of  Christianity  7  Yet,  on  the  whole,  I  have 
chosen  to  omit  his  name  from  my  list  of  Fatalists. 

As  to  Descartes,  it  is  true  that  he  was  no  Fatalist ;  it  was 
an  error  to  call  him  such.  I  did,  in  fact,  by  a  slip  of 
memory,  confound  him  with  his  contemporary  Gassendi,  who, 
in  fact,  revived  and  defended  the  theory  of  atoms  set  forth 
by  Epicurus,  and  based  his  natural  philosophy  upon  it.  Still, 
even  Gassendi  did  not  deny  the  existence  and  creative  power 
of  God  ;  but,  atoms  being  created,  he  explained  the  universe 
by  them.  The  reviewer  next  pretends  not  to  know  whether 
Spinoza  was  a  Fatalist  or  not !  Probably  he  did  not  know 
whether  he  was  a  Pantheist  or  not :  or,  perhaps,  he  did  not 
know  whether  Pantheism  is,  of  necessity,  a  system  of  Fatal- 
ism, All  this  professed  ignorance,  so  discreditable  to  him 
as  a  scholar,  seems  to  be  assumed,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding, 
as  far  as  possible,  any  acknowledgment  of  the  accuracy  of 
any  of  my  statements.  For  the  same  reason,  he  undertakes 
at  great  length,  but  fruitlessly,  to  vindicate  the  materialist 
Hobbes  from  the  charge  of  Fatalism. 

And  yet  it  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  in  the  very  collection 
of  Princeton  essays  which  contains  this  vindication  of  Ilobbes 
there  is  an  article  by  Neander,  already  referred  to,  in  which 
the  same  charge  of  Fatalism  for  which  I  am  arraigned  is 
made  against  him,  with  the  implied  approval  of  the  editors. 
His  words  are.  "  He  maintained  that  God  and  the  anjrels 
were  not  spirits,  and  denied  the  Uberhj  of  man.''''  Again, 
he  says,  '•  Ilis  materialism  produced,  for  a  time,  considerable 
elTect ;  the  doctrine  of  human  liberty ^  and  the  existence  of 
spirits,  were  rendered  doubtful  in  the  minds  of  many,  and 
even  a  species  of  atheism  became,  to  a  certain  extent,  prev- 
alent."—Vol.  I.  p.  ^m,  567. 

If  all  this,  as  said  by  Neander,  is  so  true  and  important 


454  VIEWS    OF   THEOLOGY. 

as  to  be  published,  without  criticism  or  censure,  in  the 
Biblical  Repei^tory^  and  is  meritorious  enough  to  be  repub- 
lished in  one  of  their  permanent  volumes,  then  how  happens 
it  that,  when  I  say  the  same  things,  they  are  at  length  dis- 
covered to  be  false  and  censurable,  and  are  published  as  such 
in  the  same  .collection  ?  Does  it  not  look  as  if  the  great 
point  to  be  carried  by  the  Princeton  divines  was  to  accumu- 
late errors  on  me  at  all  hazards,  even  if,  in  so  doing,  they 
introduced  inconsistencies  and  contradictions  into  their  own 
select  works  ? 

I  pay  so  much  attention  to  these  historical  statements 
merely  because  the  reviewer  seems  to  rely  on  them  so 
greatly  for  effect.  And  yet,  as  affecting  the  logical  force  of 
my  argument,  they  are  of  no  weight  whatever.  What  if  I 
do  happen,  occasionally,  to  err  in  making  out  a  list  of  Fatal- 
ists ?  Does  it  therefore  follow  that  there  are  no  Fatahsts, 
and  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  FataHsm,  and  that  the 
elements  of  Fatalism  have  not  been,  in  all  ages,  such  as  I 
have  represented  ?  It  would  have  been  more  to  the  purpose, 
if  the  reviewer,  after  wasting  so  much  time  on  such  alleged 
errors  as  even  if  correctly  alleged  were  merely  incidental, 
had  at  length  met  me  with  sound  arguments  on  the  main 
question ;  but  this  is  precisely  what  he  failed  to  do. 

Besides  these  modes  of  attack  on  me,  the  reviewer  tries, 
here  and  there,  to  prove  incidental  inconsistencies  and  con- 
tradictions. For  example,  I  assert,  in  my  argument,  that  in 
the  sense  assumed  by  Fatalists  motives  are  not  causes  of 
volition ;  that  is,  strictly  and  properly,  necessitating  causes. 
In  another  place,  however,  I  teach  that  the  truth  is  instru- 
mental as  a  moral  cause,  when  used  by  God  in  regenerating 
the  soul.  Here,  he  exclaims,  is  a  palpable  inconsistency ;  — 
just  as  if  I  did  not  plainly  use  the  word  cause  in  two  senses 


REMARKS   ON   THE   PRINCETON  REVIEW.  455 

in  these  two  cases  —  one  in  a  material,  the  other  in  a  moral 
sense  !  —  Sec  p.  176. 

Again,  I  affirm  that  the  simple  ability  of  choosing  wrong 
is  nothing  as  an  explanation  of  the  fact  of  uniform  and  un- 
reasonable wrong  choice.  IIow,  then,  asks  the  reviewer,  can 
the  ability  to  choose  right  be  everything^  as  I  elsewhere 
teach?  Here,  he  exclaims,  is  another  inconsistency.  Just 
as  if  what  I  said  in  the  second  case  were  not  this :  that 
ability  to  choose  right  is  of  supreme  importance  as  a  basis 
of  responsibilitij  for  right  or  wrong  choice,  and  not  as  an 
explanation  of  the  reason  why  men  choose  either  right  or 
wrong  !  —  pp.  176,  177. 

Such  are  the  flimsy  proofs  in  view  of  which  he  goes  on  to 
allege  that,  though  I  may  be  a  good  orator  and  rhetorician, 
I  am  worthy  of  no  confidence  as  a  logician  or  a  meta- 
physician.—  p.  177.  All  that  I  can  say,  in  reply  to  such 
criticism,  is,  that  it  is  sufficient  for  me  to  provide  clear  ideas 
and  sound  arguments ;  I  am  under  no  obligation  to  provide  for 
the  reviewer  the  capacity  or  the  candor  needed  to  understand 
them.  The  same  remarks  may  be  made  with  reference  to 
his  opening  harangue,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  part 
of  his  review.  It  is  a  mere  piece  of  objurgatory  rhetoric, 
dcsif^ncd  for  eSect,  and  has  no  basis  whatever  in  a  candid 
and  intelligent  interpretation  of  my  language  and  argument, 
taken  as  a  whole. 

What,  now,  can  be  the  real  reason  of  such  a  course 
towards  me  7  To  my  mind  it  is  clear  that,  had  I  been 
willing  to  coincide  with  certain  men,  of  a  certain  party, 
in  certain  practical  measures,  I  should  have  been  left 
undisturbed  in  my  theology,  especially  as  every  tribunal, 
from  the  Presbytery  to  the  General  Assembly,  had  sus- 
tained my   orthodoxy   and   condemned  my  accuser,  —  and 


456  VIEWS   OF   THEOLOGY. 

that  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Princeton  gentlemen  them- 
selves, in  the  General  Assembly.  But,  after  all,  with  refer- 
ence to  certain  favorite  practical  measures,  I  still  proved 
refractory ;  and  then,  however  it  may  be  accounted  for,  the 
review  came,  and  it  was  such  as  I  have  shown.  The  re- 
viewer, I  am  aware,  ridicules  the  idea  of  a  purpose  to  write 
me  down.  I  shall  go  into  no  controversy  on  that  point.  I 
have  my  own  knowledge  of  facts  and  coincidences,  and  my 
own  belief;  but,  whatever  may  have  been  the  origin  of  the 
review,  it  is  enough  for  me  to  have  shown  Avhat  it  is,  and  to 
have  left  on  record,  for  all  who  love  the  truth,  this  vindica- 
tion of  my  character  and  my  views.  In  conclusion,  I  com- 
mend my  labors,  on  the  important  and  fundamental  doctrines 
discussed  in  this  volume,  to  the  candid  consideration  of  my 
fellow-men,  and  to  the  care  and  vindication  of  my  God. 


Date  Due 


